1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics
  4. Volume 25, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 25, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
PDF

Abstract

People’s power and status can be manifested through the language they use. It was generally perceived that men’s speeches are more assertive and direct than women’s because of men’s higher social status in the societies. Yet, studies have argued that there should be no difference in terms of men and women’s linguistic politeness behaviors if they are in the same power position; instead, the addressees’gender is the critical determinant to the addressers’linguistic performances. This research provided some evidence from evaluative communications in TV reality talent shows to further verify whether or not the addressers’ and the addressees’ gender id entities are significantly correlated to the addressers’ linguistic politeness behavior, focusing specifically on their use of mitigating strategies for criticism amelioration. The current analysis referred to Brown and Levinson’s(1987) politeness theory and face notion. Results manifested that it is the addressers’ gender instead of the addressees’ gender that was related to the addressers’ communication style in this particular situational context. Specifically, male judges utilized more mitigating utterances than female judges did. The major implication of the findings is that the functions of politeness devices that speakers perceive and the situational information of the speech context leave greater influences on the addressers’ politeness behavior than the gender of their addressees.

© 2015 International Pragmatics Association
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.25.3.07tan
2015-09-01
2025-01-16

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/prag.25.3.07tan
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bashiruddin, A. , J. Edge , and E. Hughes-Pélégrin
    (1990) Who Speaks in Seminars? Status, culture and gender at Durham University. In R. Clark , N. Fairclough , R. Ivanic , N. McLeod , J. Thomas , and P. Meara (eds.), Language and Power. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching, pp. 74-84.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Blum-Kulka, S. , J. House , and G. Kasper
    (1989) Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood: Ablex.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Brouwer, D. , M. Gerritsen , and D. de Haan
    (1979) Speech differences between women and men: On the wrong track?Language in Society8: 33-50. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500005935
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500005935 [Google Scholar]
  4. Brouwer, D
    (1982) The influence of the addressee’s sex on politeness in language use. Linguistics20: 697-711.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Brown, P
    (1980) How and why are women more polite: Some evidence from a Mayan community. In S. McConnell-Ginet , R. Borker , and F. Furman (eds.), Women and Language in Literature and Society. New York: Praeger,pp. 111-136.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, P. , and S.C. Levinson
    (1987) Politeness: Some universalsin language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Coates, J
    (1996) Women Talk. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. de Bie, M.L.W
    (1987) Classroom interaction: Survival of the fittest. In D. Brouwer , and D. de Haan (eds.), Women’s Language, Socialization and Self-Image. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 76-88.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. DeFrancisco, V.L
    (1998) The sounds of silence: How men silence women in marital relations. In J. Coates (ed.), Language and Gender: A reader. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 484-494.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Duijm, K
    (1987) Learning to ‘be’ at school: Authority and warmth in the classroom. In D. Brouwer , and D. de Haan (eds.), Women’s Language, Socialization and Self-Image. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 89-113.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Edelsky, C. , and K. Adams
    (1990) Creating inequality: Breaking the rules in debates. Journal of Language and Social Psychology9: 171-190. doi: 10.1177/0261927X9093001
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X9093001 [Google Scholar]
  12. Færch, C. , and G. Kasper
    (1989) Internal and external modification in interlanguage request realization. In S. Blum-Kulka , J. House , and G. Kasper (eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood: Ablex, pp. 221-247.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Fishman, P.M
    (1978) Interaction: The work women do. Social Problems25:397-406. doi: 10.2307/800492
     https://doi.org/10.2307/800492 [Google Scholar]
  14. Goffman, E
    (1976) Interaction Ritual: Essays on face to face behavior. New York: Anchor Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Goodwin, C
    (1980) Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of a state of mutual gaze at turn-beginning. Sociological Inquiry50: 272-302. doi: 10.1111/j.1475‑682X.1980.tb00023.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00023.x [Google Scholar]
  16. Grice, P
    (1975) Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole , and J.L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41-58.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Haas, A
    (1979) The acquisition of genderlect. Annals of theNew York Academy of Sciences: Language, sex, and gender327: 101-113. doi: 10.1111/j.1749‑6632.1979.tb17757.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1979.tb17757.x [Google Scholar]
  18. Holmes, J
    (1984) Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics8: 345-365. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(84)90028‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(84)90028-6 [Google Scholar]
  19. (1988) Sex differences in seminar contributions. BAAL News-Letter31: 33-41.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. (1989) Sex differences and apologies: One aspect of communicative competence. Applied Linguistics10: 194-213. doi: 10.1093/applin/10.2.194
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.2.194 [Google Scholar]
  21. (1990) Apologies in New Zealand English. Language in Society19: 155-199. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500014366
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500014366 [Google Scholar]
  22. (1992) An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. New York: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. (1993a) Women’s talk in public contexts. Discourse and Society3: 131-150. doi: 10.1177/0957926592003002001
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926592003002001 [Google Scholar]
  24. (1993b) New Zealand women are good to talk to: An analysis of politeness strategies in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics20: 91-116. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(93)90078‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90078-4 [Google Scholar]
  25. (1995) Women, Men, and Politeness. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Holtgraves, T. , and J.N. Yang
    (1990) Politeness as universal: Cross-cultural perceptions of request strategies and inferences based on their use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology59: 719-729. doi: 10.1037/0022‑3514.59.4.719
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.4.719 [Google Scholar]
  27. House, J. , and G.Kasper
    (1981) Politeness markers in English and German. In F. Coulmas (ed.), Conversational Routine: Explorations in standardised communication situation and pre-patterned speech. New York: Mouton Publishers, pp. 157-185.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Ide, S. , M. Hori , A. Kawasaki , S. Ikuta , and H. Haga
    (1986) Sex difference and politeness in Japanese. International Journal of the Society of Language58:225-236.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Itakura, H. , and B.M. Tsui
    (2011) Evaluation in academic discourse: Managing criticism in Japanese and English book reviews. Journal of Pragmatics43: 1366-1379. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.023
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.023 [Google Scholar]
  30. Johnson, D.M. , and D.H. Roen
    (1992)Compliment and involvement in peer reviews: Gender variation. Language in Society21:27-57. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500015025
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500015025 [Google Scholar]
  31. Johnstone, B. , K. Ferrara , and J.J. Bean
    (1992) Gender, politeness, and discourse management in same-sex and cross-sex opinion-poll interviews. Journal of Pragmatics18:405-430. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(92)90082‑M
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90082-M [Google Scholar]
  32. Kasper, G
    (1994) Politeness. In R.E. Asher (ed.), The Encycopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon, pp. 3206-3211.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Kitagawa, C
    (1979) A source of femininity in Japanese: In defence of Robin Lakoff’s ‘Language and Woman’s Place’. Papers in Linguistics 10: 275-298. doi: 10.1080/08351817709370452
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351817709370452 [Google Scholar]
  34. Lakoff, R
    (1973) The logic of politeness: Or, mindingyour p’s and q’s. In Proceeding of the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society . Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 292-305.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. (1975)Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper and Row.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Leech, G.N
    (1983) Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Levinson, S
    (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Ng, S.H. , and J.J. Bradac
    (1993) Power in Language. London: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. O’Barr, W. , and B. Atkins
    (1980) Women’s language or powerless language. In S. McConnell-Ginet , R. Borker , and N. Furman (eds.), Women and Language in Literature and Society. New York: Praeger, pp. 93-110.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Reid, J
    (1995) A study of gender differences in minimal responses. Journal of Pragmatics24: 489-512. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)00066‑N
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00066-N [Google Scholar]
  41. Rundquist, S
    (1992) Indirectness: Agender study of flouting Grice’s maxims. Journal of Pragmatics18: 431-449. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(92)90083‑N
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90083-N [Google Scholar]
  42. Scollon, R. , and S. Wong-Scollon
    (1991) Topic confusion in English-Asian discourse. World Englishes9: 113-123. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑971X.1991.tb00145.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.1991.tb00145.x [Google Scholar]
  43. Searle, J
    (1969) Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  44. (1975) Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole , and J.L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics: Speech acts.New York: Academic Press, pp.59-82.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Skewis, M
    (2003) Mitigated directness in Honglou meng: Directive speech acts and politeness in eighteen century Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics35:161-189. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00084‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00084-X [Google Scholar]
  46. Swacker, M
    (1979) Women’s verbal behavior at learned and professional conferences. In B.L. Dubois , and I. Crouch (eds.), The Sociology of the Languages of American Women. San Antonio: Trinity University, pp. 155-160.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Tanaka, L
    (2009) Communicative stances in Japanese interviews: Gender differences in formal interactions. Language and Communication29:366-382. doi: 10.1016/j.langcom.2009.03.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2009.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  48. Tannen, D.F
    (1990) You Just Don’t Understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: William Morrow.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Watts, R.J
    (2003) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511615184
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615184 [Google Scholar]
  50. West, C
    (2010) Turn-taking in doctor-patient dialogues. In P.J. Brown , and R.L. Barrett (eds.),Understanding and Applying Medical Anthropology. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, pp. 375-384.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. West, C. , and D. Zimmerman
    (1983) Small insults: A study of interruptions in cross-sex conversations between unacquainted persons. In B. Thorne , C. Kramarae , and N. Henley (eds.), Language, Gender, and Society. Rowley: Newbury House, pp. 86-111.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Yu, M.-C
    (2005) Sociolinguistic competence in the complimenting act of native Chinese and American English speaker. Language and Speech48: 91-119. doi: 10.1177/00238309050480010501
     https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309050480010501 [Google Scholar]
  53. (1999) Universalistic and culture-specific perspectives on variation in the acquisition of pragmatic competence in a second language. Pragmatics9: 281-312. doi: 10.1075/prag.9.2.04yu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.9.2.04yu [Google Scholar]
  54. Zhang, Y
    (1995) Indirectness in Chinese requesting. In G. Kasper (ed.), Pragmatics of Chinese as Native and Target Language. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, pp. 69-118.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Zimmerman, D. , and C. West
    (1975) Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. In B. Thorne , C. Kramarae , and N. Henley (eds.), Language, Gender, and Society. Rowley: Newbury House, pp. 105-129.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.25.3.07tan
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Criticism; Face-threatening act; Gender; Linguistic politeness behavior; Mandarin Chinese; Media discourse

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