Dementia-compromised language conflict and aggression
  • ISSN 2213-1272
  • E-ISSN: 2213-1280
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


Sociolinguistic research in the general population has established the existence of gender differences in the social use of language. In particular, it has been noted that women use more markers of politeness, small talk and structural devices (e.g. minimal responses, tag questions) to help maintain their conversations. Analysis of interactions involving people with dementia (PWD) suggests that these gender based differences were still present in the face of dementia. Furthermore, the use of these forms of language helped the women with dementia and extend the length of their interactions. This study investigated whether the use of such language helped or hindered women with dementia in maintaining conversational satisfaction.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Alzheimer’s Organization
  2. Angouri, Jo , and Miriam A. Locher
    2012 “Theorising Disagreement.” Journal of Pragmatics44: 1549–1553. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.011 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bax, Marcel , and Tineke Padmos
    1983 “Two Types of Verbal Dueling in Old Icelandic: The Interactional Structure of the Senna and the Mannjafnadr in Harbardsljod.” Scandinavian Studies55: 149–174.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bayraktaroğlu, Arın , and Maria Sifianou
    (eds) 2001Linguistic Politeness across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.88
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.88 [Google Scholar]
  5. Benwell, Bethan , and Elizabeth Stokoe
    2006Discourse and Gender Studies. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bourdieu, Pierre
    1991Language and Symbolic Power. Oxford: Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Brown, Penelope , and Stephen Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cameron, Deborah
    1992Feminism and Linguistic Theory. London: MacMillan. doi: 10.1007/978‑1‑349‑22334‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-22334-3 [Google Scholar]
  9. Clark, Herbert, H
    1996Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  10. Coates, Jennifer
    1983Women, Men and Language. Longman: London.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 1998Women Talk. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2013Women, Men and Everyday Talk. London: Palgrave MacMillan. doi: 10.1057/9781137314949
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137314949 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2014Women in their Speech Communities. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Coates, Jennifer , and Pia Pichler
    2011Language and Gender: A Reader. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Coupland, Justine
    2000Small Talk. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Coupland, Nikolas , Howard Giles , and John Wiemann
    1991Miscommunication and Problematic Talk. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Davis, Boyd
    (ed.) 2008Alzheimer Talk, Text and Context. London and New York: Palgrave McMillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Davis, Boyd , and Jackie Guendouzi
    (eds.) 2013Pragmatics in Dementia Discourse: Applications and Issues. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Dundes, Alan , Jerry W. Leach , and Bora Ozkok
    1986 “The Strategy of Turkish Boys’ Verbal Dueling Rhymes.” InDirections in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, edited by John J. Gumperz and Dell Hymes , 130–160. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Eckert, Penelope
    1990 “Cooperative Competition in Adolescent ‘Girl Talk’.” Discourse Processes13: 5–31. doi: 10.1080/01638539009544748
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539009544748 [Google Scholar]
  21. Eckert, Penelope , and Sandra McConnell-Ginet
    2013Language and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139245883
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139245883 [Google Scholar]
  22. Edelsky, Carol
    1981 “Who’s Got the Floor?” Language in Society10: 383–421. doi: 10.1017/S004740450000885X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740450000885X [Google Scholar]
  23. Eelen, Gino
    2001A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome’s Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Erol, Rosie , Dawn Brooker , and Elizabeth Peel
    2015Women and Dementia: A Global Research Review, www.alz.co.uk/sites/default/files/pdfs/Women-and-Dementia-Summary-Sheet.pdf (downloaded11/11/2015)
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Fischetti, Mark
    2014 “The Networked Primate”. Scientific American, 311 (3): 83–85.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Fishman, Pamela
    1978 “Interaction: The Work Women Do”. Social Problems24: 397 - 406. doi: 10.2307/800492
    https://doi.org/10.2307/800492 [Google Scholar]
  27. Goffman, Erving
    1959The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 1967Interactional Ritual, New York: Anchor Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Gray, John
    1991Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. New York: HarperCollins.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Grimshaw, Alan D
    1992Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Guendouzi, Jackie
    1996 “Gossip: Problematics for Definitions and Gendered Talk. Papers in Linguistics from the University of Manchester, Manchester: Department of Linguistics.1: 61–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 1998Negotiating Socialized Gender Identity in Women’s Time-out talk. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Cardiff: University of Wales.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 2001 “You’ll Think we’re Always Bitching’: The Functions of Cooperativity and Competition in Women’s Gossip.” Discourse Studies3: 55–77. doi: 10.1177/1461445601003001002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445601003001002 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2004 “‘She’s very Slim’: Talking about Body-Size in all Female Interactions.” Journal of Pragmatics36: 1635–1653. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.04.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.04.007 [Google Scholar]
  35. 2005 “‘I Feel quite Organized this Morning’: How Mothering is Achieved through Talk”. Sexualities, Evolution & Gender7: 17–36. doi: 10.1080/14616660500111107
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14616660500111107 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2006 “The guilt thing”: Balancing Domestic and Professional Roles. Journal of Marriage and Family68: 901–909. doi: 10.1111/j.1741‑3737.2006.00303.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00303.x [Google Scholar]
  37. 2013 “’Who am I Talking to Anyway?’: Relevance Theory in the case of Dementia.” InPragmatics in Dementia Discourse: Applications and Issues, edited by Boyd Davis , and Jackie Guendouzi , 29–54. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Guendouzi, Jackie , and Anna Pate
    2013 “Interactional and Cognitive Resources in Dementia: A Perspective from Politeness Theory.” InDialogue and Dementia: Cognitive and Communicative Resources for Engagement, edited by Robert Schrauf , and Nicole Müller , 121–146. Blackwell: London.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Guendouzi, Jackie , and Nicole Müller
    2006Approaches to Discourse in Dementia. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Guendouzi, Jackie , Boyd Davis , and Margaret Maclagan
    2015 “Expanding Expectations for Narrative Styles in the Context of Dementia.” Topics in Language Disorders35 (3): 237–257. doi: 10.1097/TLD.0000000000000061
    https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0000000000000061 [Google Scholar]
  41. Halliday, Michael. A.K
    1978Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. Maryland: University Park Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Hamilton, Heidi E
    2008a “Language and Dementia: Sociolinguistic Aspects.” InLanguage and the Brain, vol. 28 of the Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (ARAL), edited by Cornelius L.J. de Bot , 99–110. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 2008b Narrative as Snapshot: Glimpses into the Past in Alzheimer’s Discourse. Narrative Inquiry18 (1): 53–82. doi: 10.1075/ni.18.1.04ham
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.18.1.04ham [Google Scholar]
  44. Hamilton, Mark, A
    2012 “Verbal Aggression: Understanding the Psychological Antecedents and Social Consequences.” Language and Social Psychology31 (1): 5–12. doi: 10.1177/0261927X11425032
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X11425032 [Google Scholar]
  45. Hirst, William , and Gerald Echterhoff
    2012 “Remembering in Conversations: The Social Sharing and Reshaping of Memories.” Annual Review of Psychology63: 55–79. doi: 10.1146/annurev‑psych‑120710‑100340
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100340 [Google Scholar]
  46. Holmes, Janet
    1995Women, Men and Politeness, Harlow: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Jefferson, Gail
    1988 On the Sequential Organization of Troubles-Talk in Ordinary Conversation. Social Problems, 35: 418–441. doi: 10.2307/800595
    https://doi.org/10.2307/800595 [Google Scholar]
  48. 2004 “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction”. InConversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, edited by Gene H. Lerner , 13–23. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  49. Jespersen, Jens O
    1922Language: Its Nature, Development, and Origins. London: Allen and Unwin.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Johnson, Sally , and Ulrike Meinhof
    1997Language and Masculinity. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Lakoff, Robin
    1975Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper and Row.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Malinowski, Bronislaw
    1935Coral Gardens and their Magic. 2 vols. London: Allen Unwin.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Mills, Sara
    2003Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511615238
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615238 [Google Scholar]
  54. 2005 “Gender and Impoliteness.” Journal of Politeness Research1 (2): 263–280. doi: 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.2.263
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.2.263 [Google Scholar]
  55. Mulac, Antony , Kathryn Dindia , and Daniel J. Canary
    2006Sex Differences and Similarities in Communication (2nd ed.), 219–239. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Potter, Jonathon , and Margaret Wetherell
    1987Discourse and Social Psychology. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Ramanathan, Vai
    1997Alzheimer Discourse: Some Sociolinguistic Dimensions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Sabat, Stephen
    2001The Experience of Alzheimer’s Disease: Life through a Tangled Veil. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Sarangi, Srikant K. , and Stefan Slembrouck
    1992 “Non-Cooperation in Communication: A Reassessment of Gricean Pragmatics.” Journal of Pragmatics17: 117–154. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(92)90037‑C
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90037-C [Google Scholar]
  60. Schrauf, Robert , and Nicole Müller
    2014Dialogue and Dementia: Cognitive and Communicative Resources for Engagement. New York: Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Speer, Susan A. , and Elizabeth Stokoe
    2011Conversation and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511781032
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511781032 [Google Scholar]
  62. Stein, Nancy L. , Ronan S. Bernas , and David J. Calicchia
    1997 “Conflict Talk: Understanding and Resolving Arguments.” InConversation: Cognitive, Communicative and Social Perspectives, edited by Talmy Givón , 233–267. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.34.09ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.34.09ste [Google Scholar]
  63. Stewart, Katherine, A. , and Madeline M. Maxwell
    2010Storied Conflict Talk. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sin.12
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sin.12 [Google Scholar]
  64. Sunderland, Jane
    2006Language and Gender: A Resource. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Sung, Chit, C.M
    2012 “Exploring the Interplay of Gender, Discourse, and (Im)Politeness.” Journal of Gender Studies21 (3): 285–300. doi: 10.1080/09589236.2012.681179
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2012.681179 [Google Scholar]
  66. Talbot, Mary
    2010Language and Gender. Cambridge, UK.: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Tannen, Deborah
    1990You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. London: Virago.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Thorne, Barrie , and Nancy Henley
    1975Language and Sex: Dominance and Difference. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Turkle, Sherry
    2011Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic Books
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Wray, Alison
    2002Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511519772
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519772 [Google Scholar]
  71. 2008Formulaic Language: Pushing the Boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Zimmerman, Don H. , and Candace West
    1975 “Sex Roles, Interruptions and Silences in Conversation.” InLanguage and Sex: Dominance and Difference, edited by Barry Thorne , and Nancy Henley , 105–129. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): dementia; gender; interactional resources; politeness
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