Language Investigation Methodology (Edited)

Aim: To investigate if context has an effect on male and female language.

Hypothesis: Males and females language use will not conform to typical stereotypes in that they use language differently yet this will differ depending on the context.

Data: Looking at extracts from The Hunger Games to test Tannen's difference theory. I will sample multiple quotes from the books and look at the context and the use of language to see if it relates to language and gender theory. 



Analysis: Looking at language and gender features in the extracts I find. In particular, difference features but can find deficit and dominance features too.


Reliability: The books are fiction so they are not from a real life situation but it will be interesting to see the authors representation of male and female language in different situations. I could use samples from all three books to get a range of data.

Comparability: The main characters in the books are of similar ages so the males and females will only have one significant difference which is their gender. There may be contextual factors such as emotions or location which could affect the language used by the characters.

Ethicality: The books are published so there are no ethical considerations. I will cite the source and transcribed data accurately.

Analysis of Zach Transcript

Zach drawing a banana 2;4 compared with Zach and the healing robot 3;5

In the Zach and the healing robot transcript, we should expect to see his language more developed such as being in the telegraphic stage yet his language is quite disjointed. This can be seen in the phrase, "now we (.) then it healed and now (.) it will take a little time (.) for the robot to heal again (2)". This could be due to context because he is distracted by thinking about the robot. There are some parts that link to the telegraphic stage such as "an I'm sitting here (.) to (.) for waiting (.) to get (0.5) better (.) for it (0.5)" because this is ellipsis. In the beginning of the transcript he says, "can you do it Mummy?" This can relate to Dore's requesting function because he is asking for something to be done for him. The action of him turning towards Mummy is showing this through gestures as well as words. This is an example of him using an interrogative which is usually done by the mother. 

In the Zach drawing a banana transcript, there are 26 interrogatives used asked to Zach by his mother. This shows that his mum is offering guidance to him which could relate to Vygotsky's zone of proximal development because the child can do it with support from the caregiver also know as scaffolding. The number of interrogatives used towards Zach in the healing robot transcript is 16. This is significantly less which could mean that Zach is developing his language so does not require as much scaffolding. In the banana transcript Zach says the utterance, "course you can Mummy". This can be quite humourous as it unusual for a young child to say. It is also a non-standard use of adult language in response to the question, "shall i help?" The can relate to Chomsky's LAD theory as it is about listening to sentences around us and using them. This can lead to over-generalisation which can be seen here since this is not the context you would usually see that utterance.

In the Zach drawing a banana transcript he could be in the iconic stage of Bruner's theory which occurs between 1 to 6 years old. This is where information is stored in the form of images which relates to Zach drawing a banana in the transcript. Zach is learning more about language in the most recent transcript as he over-extends the term "glue sticks" but realises this and self-corrects himself to say "glue (.) spreaders". This shows that his language is developing as in the older transcript he over-extends the term "lasagne" to mean "bolognaise". This can also relate back to the iconic stage as lasagne and bolognaise look similar.

Context is important to consider when looking at language. This is because when Zach says, "this is my little pad (.) and I said (.) and said (.) the (.) train driver" it is not cohesive. This is because he is busy at the time but it could seem like Zach is struggling with the utterance. In the other transcript, Zach uses discourse markers in the utterance, "it's gonna be a long time though (.) but we're not gonna have breakfast still". The "though" and "still" are discourse markers used in response to his mum. This is likely to be because he is sensing that she wants to have breakfast. The utterance, "I cutting round the edge" is used in the oldest transcript. The auxillary verb, "cutting" is elided to create and elliptical construction. This is him over-generalising the grammar when there should be the word "am" between "I" and "cutting".

Skinner's Operant Conditioning Theory says we learn language in three ways through positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement and punishment. In the banana transcript, Zach's mum makes it clear that he has done something wrong. This is when he says, "I got food on the floor" and she changes it to "you threw food on floor". The verb "threw" is emphasising that is a bad thing to which could be a form of negative reinforcement meaning that he is less likely to do it again to avoid this. Similarly, there are examples of positive reinforcement in the same transcript. When Zach recognises the 'Busy Railway' book, his mum says, "you are a star". This is praising him for learning language which means the behaviour is more likely to be repeated according to Skinner.

"Snotrils and Jumpolines: Kids' Invented Words" Summary

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07wsmrp#play

This podcast is about how children invent and reimagine words. This is usually something that is similar to the word or the thing that they are describing.

Halliday and Dore

From: http://firstyears.org/c1/u5/dore.htm Primitive Speech Act is by Dore Communicative Function is by Halliday Examples of Behaviours Primitive Speech Act PSAs Defined Communicative Function Communicative Functions Defined Shouts "Dada" from crib Calling Gaining another's attention Interactional Establishing interaction with others Says "Dada" as he enters the room Greeting Addressing persons when they appear (Interactional)   Asserts "No!" to unwanted food Protesting Expressing dislike or rejection of times or actions Personal Expressing personal feelings or attitudes Points to dog and asks, "Doggy?" Requesting answer Asking for information with words, gestures, intonation Heuristic Inquiring about or exploring environment Raises arms and says, "Up, up, up!" Requesting action Asking for other's actions Regulatory Attempting to control other's actions Points to and says, "Cookie, peez." (Requesting action)   Instrumental Attempting to obtain objects through others Points, says "Here!" when asked, "Where's your nose?" Answering Responding to other's questions Informative Demonstrating knowledge of world with others Touches nose and says, "Nose." Labeling Naming an object or event (Informative)   Says "Go!" while pushing toy car     Imaginative Using words to invent a play word Echoes mother's exclamation of "Oh, no!" Repeating Reproducing an utterance in part or entirely     Says "No, no, no!" while alone in crib Practicing Produces words or prosodic pattern with no apparent audience

Stages of Child Language Aquisition

Stage 1: Cooing Stage (0-4 months)

• Beginning to make spontaneous cooing sounds
• Resembling vowel sounds
• They are vowel-like sounds rather than consonant because it is harder to coordinate your lips and breath

Stage 2: Babbling Stage (4-10 months)

• Repeated consonant and vowel sounds
• It becomes more complex around 8-10 months
• Echolalic babbling - reflects intonation and rhythm

Stage 3: Holophrastic Stage (1 year)

• Word-like units
• Idiomorphs - invented words
• Producing more conventional words that resemble adult pronunciation and meaning

Stage 4: Two-word Stage (2 years)

• Using two words

Stage 5: Telegraphic Stage

• Only include content words
• No conjunctions, article, prepositions or word endings

Stage 6: Beginning Oral Fluency

• Moderately fluent

Gender Essay

Group Essay

The idea that men and women use language differently is one that is related to gender inequality. The question is do men and women actually speak the same language? The three different approaches are the 3D’s. The dominance approach, as said by Jennifer Coates (1993), sees women as an oppressed group since we live in a patriarchal society.  Deborah Tannen (1989) argues the difference approach, which is the idea that men and women are socialised differently from childhood onwards. The deficit approach, as argued by Robin Lakoff (1975), states that one language is inferior to the other. I believe that men and women are not all that different but are socialised in a way that makes them different.

Deborah Tannen (1990) says that there is a difference between men and women’s language, which would be supported by the data in the table. Tannen states “the desire to affirm that women are equal has made some scholars reluctant to show that they are different”. Tannen says that women are more co-operative, more polite and give less input which could be one of the reasons that they do not interrupt as often, if at all. Whereas men are more comparative, this could be why they all interrupted during the conversation and had the longest length of time speaking. However, this may just be the way that society has taught us to be and therefore we don’t really know any different.

From the table, woman D speaks the most. However, she is interrupted the most which could be related to the dominance theory. Men are more dominant compared to females and men interrupt women more in mixed gender conversation. This fits with Tannen’s view which says that women belong to "different sub-cultures" who are socialised differently from childhood onwards. Tannen argues that theorists like Lakoff and Spender see language in terms of power and powerlessness.

The dominance theory is argued by theorist, Jennifer Coates in 1993. The dominance approach “sees women as an oppressed group and interprets differences in women's and men's speech in terms of men's dominance and women's subordination.”  Women are known to use more polite phrases rather than commands, for example: “would you please”, “please can you”. It’s also been argued that men use more taboo language which can highlight that we live in a patriarchal society. Another thing that closely links with the dominance theory is the stereotypes like, “you can’t do it, you’re a woman”, implying somehow that men are more capable just because of their gender. Men are stereotypically more aggressive and dominant which is then expressed through the language they use, which may be imperatives. This is the language which is supposedly not socially acceptable for women to use.

From the table, we can see data which represents the dominance theory. This is because it appears that the men dominate the conversation in the meeting. We can see this through the men having more turns in speaking and the length of time they speak is longer. Man F interrupted 8.0 on average but was also the male who was interrupted the most at 6.7. This shows that the men are not just interrupting the women but they are interrupting each other. In relation to the dominance theory, men fight for power not just with women but with themselves.

Robin Lakoff argues the deficit approach. This is the idea that men and women speak two different languages and that one is inferior to the other. This can be shown in Table 1 as it seems that women’s language is passive and oppressed. In the table, men have more turns on average and they speak for longer than the women.  As shown in the data, there is the idea that women speak less frequently. Lakoff found that women use more hedges like “sort of” or “it seems like”. There is also the use of empty adjectives such as “adorable” or “gorgeous”. However, Lakoff doesn’t use statistics but phrases such as “many men” or “men tend to” which are generalisations which lack evidence. There have also been changes between the genders since 1975 so her work could be considered out-dated. Deborah Cameron (1995) challenges the whole idea that there are two different and contrasting languages and that this is simply the deficit model approach; there are other explanations for differences in the way that men and women use language. There may be the effect of social class or socio-economic status which affects the way in which the two genders communicate.

The deficit model approach claims that women’s language is inferior to men’s. This bold claim is surprisingly backed by the data in Table 1, as the women had less turns, time in turns and was interrupted more than they did interrupt. Lakoff supports this theory, claiming women generally use more politeness strategies, as to keep the conversation flowing and keep the other person comfortable, whereas men are more competitive and dominate conversation.

In conclusion, Table 1 and the data in it perfectly portrays the 3D’s in a clear sense, and easily represents the changes in language due to gender, and helps look a dominance, deficit and difference. Gender equality is still a massive on-going issue today, as we claim to have a sense of equality, yet still stereotype and favour one gender, for example in the workplace. We have a long way to go before we can really feel a sense of equality. Looking at the differences in language, we can understand the key factors that make women and men so different in the eyes of society. We can learn to understand each other and overcome the differences, to finally have the sense of equality we deserve.

Opinion Style Models

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/04/national-grammar-day-rules

Date: 4th March 2016

This article is about what someone considers to be bad grammar or not.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationopinion/9966117/Text-speak-language-evolution-or-just-laziness.html

Date: 3rd April 2013

The writer expresses his opinion by showing his disgust at young children using text talk by emphasizing the fact that children need to be educated on how to use language properly.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/30/the-drunken-aussie-accent-theory-is-another-slur-on-our-rich-use-of-english

Date: 30th October 2015

This article is about the Australian accent.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/mea-culpa-a-flashy-backlash-against-mixed-metaphors-a6993711.html

Date: 22nd April 2016

This article is about mixed metaphors and some conventions of language.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/25/after-40-years-of-being-lied-to-its-time-to-leave-the-eu/

Date: 25th April 2016

This is an opinion article from someone who wants to leave the EU.