Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
References

Gender and Discourse

Profile image of Ann WeatherallAnn Weatherall

2008

https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405186407.WBIECG005
visibility

…

description

186 pages

Abstract

Introduction From language to discourse Discourse as power/knowledge Gender as discourse Social constructionism and gendered speech styles as discourse Gender and language in discursive psychology Chapter summary 5 Gender and language in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis Introduction Gender as an everyday accomplishment Conversation analysis (CA) Conversation analysis and gender and language Discursive psychology, conversation analysis and gender Chapter summary 6 Language, discourse and gender identity 7 Following the discursive turn Looking back Taking stock Future directions Concluding comments

Related papers

Discourse of Gender : How language creates reality
Alessandra Pucci Daniele

2014

This master thesis deals with the gender perception in leaderships positions. Starting from our awareness of a gendered leadership gap, this thesis aims to show our development towards our understanding of reality as socially constructed. We apply the Discourse in order to see how oppression works on women.In the course of our master thesis, we came across poststructuralists, like Foucault, Derrida and Lacan, philosopher and psychoanalysts, like Freud, Beauvoir, Irigaray, Kristeva and Butler, as well as sociolinguists, like Cameron, Miller, Baxter and Tannen. Their ideas have enriched our gendered Discourses. Furthermore, by dealing with their ideas, we were able to understand how powerful words can be. Words have the power to create identities, our reality and oppress certain groups of people. The group of people we have focussed on are women. Although the category “women” is fragmented and gender is one of many features of persons, there is something that all women share – oppress...

View PDFchevron_right
Positioning Gender in Discourse: a Feminist Methodology, by Judith Baxter; 215 pp., Palgrave Macmillan, 2003, ISBN 0 333 98635 0
Ivanovich Agusta

Linguistics and Education, 2004

Judith Baxter's Positioning Gender in Discourse: a Feminist Methodology is to be welcomed for two important reasons. First, it makes a valuable contribution to the ongoing (sometimes implicit, sometimes explicit) debate about theoretical and methodological approaches to gender and language study. Since gender and language can best be described as a 'field', it can logically be addressed by a variety of approaches. Whether one approach is somehow more appropriate or fruitful than another is a different question, and any 'answer' will depend in part on the extent to which a given piece of gender and language research is also conceptualised as feminist research. I have always been surprised, for example, why more gender and language study is not explicitly located within a critical discourse analysis (CDA) framework. On the other hand, conversation analysis (CA), hitherto often derided for its lack of value and explanatory potential for gender and language study because of the expectation that the analyst cannot view the data through a gender 'lens', has recently not only been the topic of an ongoing debate in Discourse and Society, but has also been theoretically 'rescued' in different ways for feminist purposes (see Kitzinger, 2000; Stokoe & Smithson, 2001), and is now clearly in the ascendant. Baxter's book is thus timely, addressing critiques on the one hand that feminist and CDA approaches can be 'insensitive' to different forms of power, and, on the other, that post-structuralism ignores (and thus is not useful for exploring) oppression. The second reason is that the demise of the problematic 'gender differences in language use' approach to spoken data has left something of a hiatus in published studies

View PDFchevron_right
Gender Identities and Discourse
Brona Murphy

In: Andersen, G. and Aijmer, K. (eds), Pragmatics of Society. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 53-78, 2011

This chapter will explore the interrelationship between gender identity and pragmatics in the context of casual conversation between friends. It is structured into four sections. The first section will provide a review of the work that has been carried out on pragmatics and gender differences since the 1970s to the present day. Section 2 will put forward a description of the data under exploration and will highlight the problems encountered in using a corpus-based approach when investigating pragmatics. Section 3 will present a corpus-based exploration of male and female casual conversation which will look in detail at the pragmatics of insults in the construction of male identities. While differences will be highlighted across genders, a dynamic view of gender which is based on a social-constructionist perspective will also be drawn upon to interpret the findings. Section 4 will summarise the findings and point to future directions.

View PDFchevron_right
Speaking up: understanding language and gender
Janet Holmes

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development

Allyson Jule's overview of language and gender research introduces readers to a range of valuable material using accessible prose and an engaging tone. As a 'beginner's guide' to the ways in which we are 'rehearsed into genderedness' (3-4), a useful concept, it covers the 21-42. Oxford: Blackwell.

View PDFchevron_right
Doing gender, doing categorisation: Recent developments in language and gender research
Elizabeth Stokoe

2000

View PDFchevron_right
Language and Gender
Jane Sunderland

Routledge eBooks, 2006

View PDFchevron_right
Language, Gender, and Identity
pia pichler

Routledge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology, 2015

This chapter will capture some of the complexity, heterogeneity and even contradictory nature of gender performances that are at the core of the social constructionist approach to language and gender with a particular focus on the rich and varied talk of adolescents and young adults. This focus will allow for a fresh perspective on many of the most important developments in the field at the same time as presenting data from an age range of speakers that will be of particular interest to many of the readers of this handbook. The first section of the chapter will trace the development of social constructionist thinking about language and gender. The second section will clarify the main two aspects of language that this chapter will focus on; (conversational) style and discourse, providing a brief overview of early language and gender research on conversational style. The third and main section of this chapter considers a range of important issues on the basis of recent language and gender research. It introduces language and gender studies which highlight what can be gained from moving beyond a discussion of conversational style to include a focus on discourse. It discusses the interplay of gender with other sociocultural variables and the contributions ethnographic and community of practice studies have made to capture the heterogeneity of gendered performances. The section will also highlight how scholarship on language and sexuality as well as on gender structures has shaped our recent understanding of language, gender and identity. The chapter will conclude with some recommendations for future practice in language and gender research.

View PDFchevron_right
Gender and Spoken Interaction: A Survey of Feminist Theories and Sociolinguistic Research in the United States and Britain
Lubna A . Sherif
View PDFchevron_right
23 Discourse & Communication. 2014
Judith Baxter

Increasingly, feminist linguistic research has adopted a discursive perspective to learn how women and men 'do' leadership in gendered ways. 'Women' as a social category is made relevant to this study by virtue of the lack of female senior leaders in UK businesses (Sealy and Vinnicombe, 2013). Much previous research has analysed leadership discourse in mixed gender groups, relying on theories that imply comparisons between men and women. Using an Interactional Sociolinguistic approach, this study aims to learn more about how women perform leadership in the absence of men by analysing the spoken interactions of a women-only team who were engaged in a competitive leadership task. The analysis reveals that the women accomplish leadership in multiple and complex ways that defy binary gendered classifications. Nonetheless, there is a distinctive gendered dynamic to the team's interactions which, it is argued, might be disadvantageous to women aspiring to senior positions.

View PDFchevron_right
On ethnomethodology, feminism, and the analysis of categorial reference to gender in talk-in-interaction
Elizabeth Stokoe

The Sociological Review, 2006

This paper sets out an ethnomethodological approach to the study of gender and interaction, and demonstrates how the topic of 'gender' can be studied empirically via its categorial reference in talk-in-interaction. I begin by charting the history of ethnomethodological accounts and studies of gender, starting with Garfinkel's groundbreaking work and the subsequent 'doing gender' project, alongside a more general discussion of feminism's relationship to ethnomethodology. I then consider two related trajectories of research, one in conversation analysis and the other in membership categorization analysis, both of which deal with the explication of gender's relevance to interaction, but in somewhat different ways that raise different problems. Finally, drawing on data from different institutional settings, I show how 'categorial' phenomena such as 'gender' can be studied as phenomena of sequential organization using the machinery of membership categorization alongside conversation analysis. I suggest that the analysis of members' categories in their sequential environment allows language and gender researchers to see how everyday notions of gender are taken up, reformulated, or resisted, in turns of talk that accomplish conversational action; that is, how categories 'might be relevant for the doing of some activity' (Sacks, 1992 vol. 1: 597).

View PDFchevron_right

Sorry, this document isn't available for viewing at this time.


In the meantime, you can download the document by clicking the 'Download' button above.

References (355)

  1. WOMEN'S LANGUAGE? REFERENCES
  2. Alford, R. D. (1987). Naming and identity: a cross-cultural study of personal naming practices. New Haven, CT: HRAF.
  3. Allen, R. C. (1985). Speaking of soap operas. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
  4. Allport, G. W. (1963). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
  5. Antaki, C., and Widdicombe, S. (1998). Identity as an achievement and as a tool. In C. Antaki and S. Widdicombe (eds), Identities in talk (pp. 1±14). London: Sage.
  6. Ardener, S. (ed.) (1975). Perceiving women. London: Malaby Press.
  7. Aries, E. (1996). Men and women in interaction: reconsidering the differences. New York: Oxford University Press.
  8. Aries, E. (1997). Women and men talking: are they worlds apart? In M. R. Walsh (ed.), Women, men, and gender. Ongoing debates (pp. 91±100). New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.
  9. Augoustinos, M., and Walker, I. (1995). Social cognition: an integrated introduction. London: Sage.
  10. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon.
  11. Ba È hr, G., and Weatherall, A. (1999). Women and their personal names. Making sense of cultural naming practices. Women's Studies Journal, 15(1), 43±63.
  12. Baker, R. (1981). `Pricks' and `chicks': a plea for `persons'. In M. Vetterling-Bragin (ed.), Sexist language: a modern philosophical analysis (pp. 161±182). Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Little®eld.
  13. Baron, D. (1986). Grammar and gender. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  14. Barrett, R. (1997). The `homo-genius' speech community. In A. Livia and K. Hall (eds), Queerly phrased: language, gender, and sexuality (pp. 181±201). New York: Oxford University Press.
  15. Baumeister, R. F. (1988). Should we stop studying sex differences altogether? American Psychologist, 43, 1092±1095.
  16. Bem, S. L. (1993). Lenses of gender. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  17. Bem, S. L., and Bem, D. J. (1973). Does sex-biased job advertising `aid and abet' sex discrimination? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3(1), 6±18.
  18. Bergvall, V. L. (1996). Divided minds: gender polarization in brain and language research. In N. Warner, J. Ahlers, L. Bilmes, M. Oliver, S. Wertheim, and M. Chen (eds), Gender and belief systems: proceedings of the fourth Berkeley women and language conference (pp. 11±23). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group.
  19. Bergvall, V. L., Bing, J. M., and Freed, A. F. (1996). Rethinking language and gender research: theory and practice. New York: Longman.
  20. Berlin, B., and Kay, P. (1969). Basic color terms: their universality and evolution. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  21. Billig, M., Condor, S., Edwards, D., Gane, M., Middleton, D., and Radley, A. (1988). Ideological dilemma. A social psychology of everyday thinking. London: Sage.
  22. Bing, J. M., and Bergvall, V. L. (1998). The question of questions: beyond binary thinking. In J. Coates (ed.), Language and gender: a reader (pp. 495±510). Oxford: Blackwell.
  23. Block, J. H. (1976). Issues, problems and pitfalls in assessing sex differences: a critical review of the psychology of sex differences. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 22, 283±308.
  24. Bodine, A. (1975). Androcentrism in prescriptive grammar: singular `they', sex inde®nite `he', and `he or she'. Language in Society, 4, 129±146.
  25. Bohan, J. S. (ed.) (1992). Seldom seen, rarely heard: women's place in psychology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  26. Brabandt, S., and Mooney, L. (1989). Him, her, or either: sex of person addressed and interpersonal communication. Sex Roles, 20(1/2), 47±58.
  27. Brannon, L. (1996). Gender. Psychological perspectives. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  28. Briere, J., and Lanktree, C. (1983). Sex-role related effects of sex bias in language. Sex Roles, 9(5), 625±633.
  29. Brouwer, D. (1982). The in¯uence of the addressee's sex on politeness in language use. Linguistics, 20, 697±711.
  30. Broverman, I. K., Vogel, S. R., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., and Rosenkrantz, P. S. (1972). Sex-role stereotypes: a current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 28(2), 59±78.
  31. Brown, R., and Fish, D. (1983). The psychological causality implicit in language. Cognition, 14, 237±273.
  32. Bucholtz, M. (1996). Geek the girl: language, femininity and female nerds. In N. Warner, J. Ahlers, L. Bilmes, M. Olicer, S. Wertheim, and M. Chen (eds), Gender and belief systems (pp. 119±131). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group.
  33. Bucholtz, M. (1999). `Why be normal': language and identity practices in a community of nerd girls. Language in Society, 28, 203±223.
  34. Bucholtz, M., and Hall, K. (1995). Introduction: twenty years after `Language and woman's place'. In K. Hall and M. Bucholtz (eds), Gender articulated: language and the socially constructed self (pp. 1±22). London and New York: Routledge.
  35. Bunzl, M. (2000). Inverted appellation and discursive insubordination: an Austrian case study in gay male conversation. Discourse and Society, 2(11), 207±236.
  36. Burman, E., and Parker, I. (eds) (1993). Discourse analytic research. Repertoires and readings of texts in action. London and New York: Routledge.
  37. Burnham, D. K., and Harris, M. B. (1992). Effects of real gender and labeled gender on adults' perception of infants. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 153(2), 165±183.
  38. Buss, D. M. (1995). Psychological sex differences: origins through sexual selection. American Psychologist, 50(3), 164±168.
  39. Buss, D. M. (1996). Paternity uncertainty and the complex repertoire of human mating strategies. American Psychologist, 51, 161±162.
  40. Butler, J. (1990a). Gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
  41. Butler, J. (1990b). Performative acts and gender constitution: an essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. In S. Case (ed.), Performing feminisms: feminist critical theory and theatre (pp. 270±282). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  42. Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: on the discursive limits of sex. New York: Routledge.
  43. Butler, J. (1997). Excitable speech: a politics of the performative. London: Routledge.
  44. Butruille, S. G., and Taylor, A. (1987). Women in American popular song. In L. P. Stewart and S. Ting-Toomey (eds), Communication, gender, and sex roles in diverse interaction contexts (pp. 179±188). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Co.
  45. Caldas-Coulthard, C. R. (1995). Man in the news: the misrepresentation of women speaking in news-as-narrative discourse. In S. Mills (ed.), Language and gender: interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 226±239). London: Longman.
  46. Cameron, D. (1985). Feminism and linguistic theory. London: Macmillan.
  47. Cameron, D. (1992). `Not gender difference but the difference gender makes' ± explanation in research on sex and language. International Journal on Sociology of Language, 94, 13±26.
  48. Cameron, D. (1995). Verbal hygiene. London: Routledge.
  49. Cameron, D. (1997). Theoretical debates in feminist linguistics: questions of sex and gender. In R. Wodak (ed.), Gender and discourse (pp. 21±36). London: Sage.
  50. Cameron, D. (1998a). Gender, language, and discourse: a review essay. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 23(4), 945±967.
  51. Cameron, D. (1998b). `Is there any ketchup, Vera?': Gender, power and pragmatics. Discourse and Society, 9(4), 437±455.
  52. Cameron, D., McAlinden, F., and O'Leary, K. (1989). Lakoff in context: the social and linguistic functions of tag questions. In J. Coates and D. Cameron (eds), Women in their speech communities (pp. 74±93). London: Longman.
  53. Caplan, P. J., MacPherson, G. M., and Tobin, P. (1985). Do sex-related differences in spatial abilities exist? American Psychologist, 40, 786±799.
  54. Carli, L. (1990). Gender, language and in¯uence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 941±951.
  55. Chadhuri, A. (2000). Portrait of a lady. Is the L word OK? Guardian (G2), 19 September, p. 6.
  56. Coates, J. (1986). Women, men and language. London: Longman.
  57. Coates, J. (1996). Women talk. Oxford: Blackwell.
  58. Coates, J. (ed.) (1998). Language and gender: a reader. Oxford: Blackwell.
  59. Cole, C. M., Hill, F. A., and Dayley, L. J. (1983). Do masculine pronouns used generically lead to thoughts of men? Sex Roles, 9(6), 737±749.
  60. Condry, J. C., and Condry, S. M. (1976). Sex differences: a study in the eye of the beholder. Child Development, 56, 225±233.
  61. Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  62. Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Oxford: Polity Press.
  63. Connor, J., Byrne, F., Mindell, J., Cohen, D., and Nixon, E. (1986). Use of the titles Ms., Miss, or Mrs.: does it make a difference? Sex Roles, 14(9/10), 545±549.
  64. Cooper, P. J. (1987). Sex role stereotypes in children's literature. In L. P. Stewart and S. Ting-Toomey (eds), Communication, gender, and sex roles in diverse interaction contexts (pp. 61±82). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Co.
  65. Cooper, P. J. (1989). Children's literature: the extent of sexism. In C. M. Lont and S. A. Friedley (eds), Beyond boundaries (pp. 233±250). Fairfax, VA: G. Mason University Press.
  66. Crawford, M. (1995). Talking difference. London: Sage.
  67. Crawford, M., and English, L. (1984). Generic versus speci®c inclusion of women in language: effects on recall. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 13(5), 373±
  68. Crawford, M., and Kimmel, E. (eds) (2000). Innovations in feminist psychological research. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  69. Crowther, B., and Leith, D. (1995). Feminism, language, and the rhetoric of television wildlife programmes. In S. Mills (ed.), Language and gender: interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 207±225). London: Longman.
  70. Cutler, A., and Scott, D. R. (1990). Speaker sex and perceived apportionment of talk. Applied Psycholinguistics, 11(3), 253±272.
  71. Daly, M. (1978). Gyn/ecology: the metaethics of radical feminism. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
  72. Daly, M., and Caputi, J. (1987). Webster's ®rst new intergalactic wickedry of the English language. London: Women's Press.
  73. Daly, N., and Warren, P. (2001). Pitching it differently in New Zealand English: speaker sex and intonation patterns. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5, 85±96.
  74. Davies, B., and Harre Â, R. (1990). Positioning: the discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviours, 20(1), 43±63.
  75. de Beauvoir, S. (1952, reprint 1988). The second sex. London: Cape.
  76. Derry, P. S. (1996). Buss and sexual selection: the issue of culture. American Psychologist, 51, 159±160.
  77. Dion, K. L., and Schuller, R. A. (1990). Ms., and the manager: a tale of two stereotypes. Sex Roles, 22(9/10), 569±577.
  78. Dubois, B. L., and Crouch, I. (1974). The question of tag questions in women's speech: they don't really use more of them, do they? Language in Society, 4, 289±294.
  79. Duggan, D. A., Cota, A. A., and Dion, D. L. (1993). Taking thy husband's name: what might it mean? Names, 41, 87±102.
  80. Duran, R. L., and Carveth, R. A. (1990). The effects of gender-role expectations upon perceptions of communicative competence. Communication Research Reports, 7(1), 25±33.
  81. Eagly, A. H. (1994). On comparing women and men. Feminism and Psychology, 4(4), 513±522.
  82. Eagly, A. H. (1995). The science and politics of comparing men and women. American Psychologist, 50(3), 145±158.
  83. Eagly, A. H. (1997). Comparing women and men: methods, ®ndings and politics. In M. R. Walsh (ed.), Women, men and gender. Ongoing debates (pp. 24±32). New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.
  84. Eakins, B. W., and Eakins, R. G. (1978). Sex differences in human communication. Boston, MA: Houghton Mif¯in.
  85. Eckert, P. (1988). Adolescent social structure and the spread of linguistic change. Language in Society, 17, 245±267.
  86. Eckert, P. (2000). Linguistic variation as social practice. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  87. Eckert, P., and McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). Think practically and look locally: language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology, 21, 461±490.
  88. Eckert, P., and McConnell-Ginet, S. (1995). Constructing meaning, constructing selves. Snapshots of language, gender and class from Belten High. In K. Hall and M. Bucholtz (eds), Gender articulated: language and the socially constructed self (pp. 469±507). New York: Routledge.
  89. Edley, N., and Wetherell, M. (1995). Men in perspective: practice, power and identity. London and New York: Prentice Hall/Harvester Wheatsheaf.
  90. Edley, N., and Wetherell, M. (1997). Jockeying for position: the construction of masculine identities. Discourse and Society, 8(2), 203±217.
  91. Edley, N., and Wetherell, M. (1999). Imagined futures: young men's talk about fatherhood and domestic life. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 181±194.
  92. Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition. London: Sage.
  93. Edwards, D. (1998). The relevant thing about her: social identity categories in use. In C. Antaki and S. Widdicombe (eds), Identities in talk (pp. 15±34). London: Sage.
  94. Edwards, D., and Potter, J. (1993). Language and causation: a discursive action model of description and attribution. Psychological Review, 100, 23±41.
  95. Ehrlich, S. (1998). The discursive reconstruction of sexual consent. Discourse and Society, 9(2), 149±171.
  96. Ehrlich, S. (1999). Communities of practice, gender and representation of sexual assault. Language in Society, 28, 239±256.
  97. Ellis, L. (1991). A synthesised (biosocial) theory of rape. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 631±642.
  98. Ellis, L. (1993). Rape as a biosocial phenomenon. In G. N. Hall, R. Hirschman, J. R. Graham, and M. S. Zaragosa (eds), Sexual aggression: issues in aetiology, assessment, and treatment (pp. 17±41). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
  99. Epstein, C. F. (1988). Deceptive distinctions: sex, gender, and the social order. New Haven, CT: Oxford University Press.
  100. Epstein, C. F. (1997). The multiple realities of sameness and difference: ideology and practice. Journal of Social Issues, 53(2), 259±278.
  101. Falk, E., and Mills, J. (1996). Why sexist language affects persuasion: the role of homophily, intended audience, and offense. Women and Language, 19(2), 36±
  102. Fausto-Sterling, A. (1986). Myths of gender: biological theories about women and men. New York: Basic Books.
  103. Fausto-Sterling, A. (1993). The ®ve sexes. Why female and male aren't enough. Science (March/April), 20±25.
  104. Fausto-Sterling, A. (1997). Beyond difference: a biologist's perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 53(2), 233±258.
  105. Fishman, P. M. (1977). Interactional shitwork. Heresies, 2, 99±101.
  106. Fitzpatrick, M. A., Mulac, A., and Dindia, K. (1995). Gender-preferential language use in spouse and stranger interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14(1±2), 18±39.
  107. Freed, A. F., and Greenwood, A. (1996). Women, men, and type of talk: what makes the difference? Language in Society, 25, 1±26.
  108. French, M. (1992). The war against women. London: Penguin Books.
  109. Frith, H., and Kitzinger, C. (1997). Talk about sexual miscommunication. Women's Studies International Forum, 20(4), 517±528.
  110. Gal, S. (1991). Between speech and silence: the problematics of research on language and gender. In M. di Leonardo (ed.), Gender at the crossroads of knowledge: feminist anthropology in the postmodern era (pp. 175±203). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  111. Gal, S. (1995). Language, gender, and power: an anthropological review. In K. Hall and M. Bucholtz (eds), Gender articulated: language and the socially constructed self (pp. 169±182). New York: Routledge.
  112. Gardner, C. B. (1980). Passing by: street remarks, address rights, and the urban female. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3±4), 328±356.
  113. Gar®nkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
  114. Gavey, N. (1989). Feminist poststructuralism and discourse analysis: contributions to feminist psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 459±475.
  115. Gavey, N. (1992). Technologies of heterosexual coercion. Feminism and Psychology, 2, 325±352.
  116. Geraghty, C. (1991). Women and soap opera: a study of prime time soaps. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  117. Giles, H., and Coupland, N. (1991). Language in context. In H. Giles and N. Coupland (eds), Language: contexts and consequences (pp. 1±31). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
  118. Giles, H., and Smith, P. M. (1979). Accommodation theory: optimal levels of convergence. In H. Giles and R. St Clair (eds), Language and social psychology (pp. 45±65). Oxford: Blackwell.
  119. Gill, R. (1993). Justifying injustice: broadcasters' accounts of inequality in radio. In E. Burman and I. Parker (eds), Discourse analytic research: repertoires and readings of texts in action (pp. 75±93). London: Routledge.
  120. Gill, R. (1995). Relativism, re¯exivity and politics: interrogating discourse analysis from a feminist perspective. In S. Wilkinson and C. Kitzinger (eds), Feminism and discourse. Psychological perspectives (pp. 165±186). London: Sage.
  121. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  122. Goffman, E. (1976). Gender advertisements. Studies in the anthropology of visual communication. New York: HarperCollins.
  123. Gough, B. (1998). Men and the discursive reproduction of sexism. Repertoires of difference and equality. Feminism and Psychology, 8(1), 25±49.
  124. Graddol, D., and Swann, J. (1989). Gender voices. Oxford: Blackwell.
  125. Grady, K. (1981). Sex bias in research design. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5(4), 628±636.
  126. Gray, J. (1992). Men are from Mars, women are from Venus. London: Thorsons.
  127. Gray, J. (1995). Mars and Venus in the bedroom: a guide to lasting romance and passion. New York: HarperCollins.
  128. Greene, K., and Rubin, D. L. (1991). Effects of gender inclusive/exclusive language in religious discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 10(2), 81±98.
  129. Greer, G. (1970). The female eunuch. London: Landsborough.
  130. Gross, R. M. (1996). Feminism and religion: an introduction. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
  131. Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  132. Haan, J., and van Heuven, V. J. (1999). Male vs female pitch range in Dutch questions. Paper presented at the thirteenth international congress of phonetic sciences, San Francisco.
  133. Hall, K. (1995). Lip service on the fantasy lines. In K. Hall and M. Bucholtz (eds), Gender articulated: language and the socially constructed self (pp. 183±216). London and New York: Routledge.
  134. Halperin, D. M. (1995). Saint=Foucault. Towards a gay hagiography. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  135. Halpern, D. F. (1986). Sex differences in cognitive abilities. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  136. Halpern, D. F. (1992). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (2nd edn). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  137. Halpern, D. F. (1994). Stereotypes, science, censorship and the study of sex differences. Feminism and Psychology, 4(4), 523±530.
  138. Hamilton, M. C. (1988). Masculine generic terms and misperception of AIDS risk. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18(14), 1222±1240.
  139. Hamilton, M. C. (1991). Masculine bias in the attribution of personhood. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 393±402.
  140. Hamilton, M. C., Hunter, B., and Stuart-Smith, S. (1992). Jury instructions worded in the masculine generic: can a woman claim self-defense when `he' is threatened? In J. C. Chrisler and D. Howard (eds), New directions in feminist psychology: practice, theory, and research (Vol. 13, pp. 169±178). New York: Springer.
  141. Hannah, A., and Murachver, T. (1999). Gender and conversational style as predictors of conversational behaviour. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18(2), 153±195.
  142. Haraway, D. J. (1991). Simians, cyborgs and women: the reinvention of nature. London: Free Association Press.
  143. Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
  144. Harding, S. (ed.) (1992). Feminism and methodology: social science issues. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
  145. Hare-Mustin, R. T., and Marecek, J. (eds) (1990). Making a difference: psychology and the construction of gender. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  146. Hare-Mustin, R. T., and Marecek, J. (1994). Asking the right questions: feminist psychology and sex differences. Feminism and Psychology, 4, 531±537.
  147. Harre Â, R. (1980). What's in a nickname? Psychology Today (January), 79±84.
  148. Hawes, T., and Thomas, S. (1995). Language bias against women in British and Malaysian newspapers. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 1±18.
  149. Hayashi, R. (1997). Hierarchical interdependence expressed through conversa- tional styles in Japanese women's magazines. Discourse and Society, 8(3), 359±
  150. Healey, J. M., Waldstein, S., and Goodglass, H. (1985). Sex differences in the lateralization of language discrimination vs language production. Neuropsycho- logia, 23(6), 777±789.
  151. Heilman, M. E. (1975). Miss, Mrs., Ms., or none of the above. American Psychologist (April), 516±518.
  152. Henley, N. (1977). Body politics. Power, sex and nonverbal communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  153. Henley, N. (1987). This new species that seeks a new language: on sexism in language and language change. In J. Pen®eld (ed.), Women and language in transition (pp. 3±25). New York: State University of New York Press.
  154. Henley, N. (1989). Molehill or mountain? What we know and don't know about sex bias in language. In M. Crawford and M. Gentry (eds), Gender and thought (pp. 59±77). New York: Springer Verlag.
  155. Henley, N., and Kramarae, C. (1991). Gender, power, and miscommunication. In N. Coupland, H. Giles, and J. M. Wiemann (eds), `Miscommunication' and problematic talk (pp. 18±43). Newbury Park: Sage.
  156. Henley, N., Gruber, B., and Lerner, L. (1988). Studies on the detrimental effects of `generic' masculine usage. Paper presented at the proceedings of the Eastern psychological association conference, Boston.
  157. Henley, N., Miller, M., and Beazley, J. (1995). Syntax, semantics, and sexual violence: agency and the passive voice. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14(1±2), 60±84.
  158. Henriques, J., Hollway, W., Urwin, C., Venn, C., and Walkerdine, V. (1984). Changing the subject. Psychology, social regulation and subjectivity (2nd edn). London: Routledge.
  159. Henton, C. G. (1989). Fact and ®ction in the description of female and male speech. Language and Communication, 9(4), 299±311.
  160. Hepburn, A. (1999). Postmodernity and the politics of feminist psychology. Radical Psychology, 1(2), 1±18.
  161. Heritage, J. (1984). Gar®nkel and ethnomethodology. Oxford: Polity Press.
  162. Hier, D. B., Yoon, W. B., Mohr, J. P., Price, T. R., and Wolf, P. A. (1994). Gender and aphasia in the stroke data bank. Brain and Language, 47, 155±167.
  163. Hill, A. O. (1986). Mother tongue, father time: a decade of linguistic revolt. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
  164. Hollway, W. (1984). Gender difference and the production of subjectivity. In J. Henriques, W. Hollway, C. Urwin, C. Venn, and V. Walkerdine (eds), Changing the subject. Psychology, social regulation and subjectivity (2nd edn, pp. 26±59). London: Routledge.
  165. Hollway, W. (1994). Beyond sex differences: a project for feminist psychology. Feminism and Psychology, 4(4), 538±546.
  166. Holmes, J. (1984). Hedging your bets and sitting on the fence: some evidence for hedges as support structures. Te Reo, 27, 47±62.
  167. Holmes, J. (1992). An introduction to sociolinguistics. London: Longman.
  168. Holmes, J. (1993). Chairpersons and goddesses: non sexist usages in New Zealand English. Te Reo, 36, 99±113.
  169. Holmes, J. (1997). Story-telling in New Zealand women's and men's talk. In R. Wodak (ed.), Gender and discourse (pp. 263±293). London: Sage.
  170. Holmes, J. (1999). Preface. Language in Society, 28, 171±172.
  171. Holmes, J. (ed.) (2000). Gendered speech in social context: perspectives from town and gown. Wellington, NZ: Victoria University Press.
  172. Holmes, J., and Meyerhoff, M. (1999). The community of practice: theories and methodologies in language and gender research. Language in Society, 28, 173± 183. Holmes, J., and Meyerhoff, M. (eds) (in press). Blackwell handbook for language and gender. Oxford: Blackwell.
  173. Hopper, R., and LeBaron, C. (1998). How gender creeps into talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 31(1), 59±74.
  174. Hughes, D. L., and Casey, P. L. (1986). Pronoun choice for gender-unspeci®ed agent words: developmental differences. Language and Speech, 29(1), 59±67.
  175. Hyde, J. S. (1990). Meta-analysis and the psychology of sex differences. Signs: Journal of Women and Culture in Society, 16(1), 55±73.
  176. Hyde, J. S. (1994). Should psychologists study sex difference? Yes, with some guidelines. Feminism and Psychology, 4(4), 507±512.
  177. Hyde, J. S., and Linn, M. C. (1988). Gender differences in verbal ability: a meta- analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 104(1), 53±69.
  178. Hyde, J. S., and Plant, E. A. (1995). Magnitude of psychological gender differences: another side to the story. American Psychologist, 50(3), 159±161.
  179. Jacobson, M. B., and Insko, W. R. (1985). Use of nonsexist pronoun as a function of one's feminist orientation. Sex Roles, 13(1/2), 1±7.
  180. James, D. (1996). Derogatory terms for women and men: a new look. In N. Warner, J. Ahlers, L. Bilmes, M. Oliver, S. Wertheim, and M. Chen (eds), Gender and belief systems. Proceedings of the fourth Berkeley women and language conference (pp. 343±354). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group.
  181. James, D., and Clarke, S. (1993). Women, men and interruptions: a critical review. In D. Tannen (ed.), Gender and conversational interaction (pp. 231±280). New York: Oxford University Press.
  182. James, D., and Drakich, J. (1993). Understanding gender differences in amount of talk: a critical review of research. In D. Tannen (ed.), Gender and conversational interaction (pp. 281±312). New York: Oxford University Press.
  183. James, J. B. (1997). What are the issues involved in focussing on difference in the study of gender? Journal of Social Issues, 53(2), 213±232.
  184. Jansen, S. C., and Sabo, D. (1994). The sport/war metaphor: hegemonic masculinity, the Persian Gulf War, and the New World Order. Sociology of Sport Journal, 11, 1±17.
  185. Jespersen, O. (1911). A modern English grammar (Vols 1 and 2).
  186. Jespersen, O. (1922). Language: its nature, development, and origin. London: Allen and Unwin.
  187. Johnson, L. (1994). Try a little togethern (English terms for women). The Economist, 331(7860), 86.
  188. Johnson, M. E., and DowlingGuyer, S. (1996). Effects of inclusive vs exclusive language on evaluations of the counselor. Sex Roles, 34(5±6), 407±418.
  189. Keenan, E. (1974). Norm-makers and norm-breakers: uses of speech by men and women in a Malagasy community. In R. Bauman and J. Sherzer (eds), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking (pp. 125±143). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  190. Kertesz, A., and Benke, T. (1989). Sex equality in intrahemispheric language organization. Brain and Language, 37, 401±408.
  191. Kessler, S. J. (1998). Lessons from the intersexed. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
  192. Kessler, S. J., and McKenna, S. (1978). Gender: an ethnomethodological approach. New York: Wiley.
  193. Key, M. R. (1975). Male/female language. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
  194. Kimura, D. (1983). Sex differences in cerebral organisation for speech and praxic functions. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 37, 19±35.
  195. Kimura, D. (1992). Sex differences in the brain. Scienti®c American, 267, 81±87.
  196. Kissling, E. A. (1991). Street harassment: the language of sexual terrorism. Discourse and Society, 2(4), 451±460.
  197. Kitto, J. (1989). Gender reference terms: separating the women from the girls. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 185±187.
  198. Kitzinger, C. (1994). Sex difference: feminist perspectives. Feminism and Psychology, 4(4), 501±596.
  199. Kitzinger, C. (2000a). Doing feminist conversation analysis. Feminism and Psychology, 10(2), 163±193.
  200. Kitzinger, C. (2000b). How to resist idiom. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(2), 121±154.
  201. Kitzinger, C., and Frith, H. (1999). Just say no? The use of conversation analysis in developing a feminist perspective on sexual refusal. Discourse and Society, 10(3), 293±316.
  202. Kitzinger, C., and Thomas, A. (1995). Sexual harassment: a discursive approach. In S. Wilkinson and C. Kitzinger (eds), Feminism and discourse: psychological perspectives (pp. 32±48). London: Sage.
  203. Kline, S. L., Stafford, L., and Reiss, J. C. (1996). Women's surnames: decisions, interpretations, and associations with relational qualities. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 593±618.
  204. Knight, H. M. (1992). Gender interference in transexuals' speech. In K. Hall, M. Bucholtz, and B. Moonwomon (eds), Locating power (pp. 312±317). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  205. Kramarae, C. (1982). Gender: how she speaks. In E. Ryan and H. Giles (eds), The social psychology of language: attitudes towards language variation in social and applied contexts (pp. 84±97). London: Chaucer Press.
  206. Kramarae, C. (1990). Changing the complexion of gender in language research. In H. Giles and W. P. Robinson (eds), Handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 345±361). Chichester and New York: Wiley.
  207. Kramer, C. (1978). Male and female perceptions of male and female speech. Language and Speech, 20(2), 151±161.
  208. Kramer, C., Thorne, B., and Henley, N. (1978). Perspectives on language and communication. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 3(3), 638±651.
  209. Kyratzis, A., and Guo, J. (1996). `Separate worlds for girls and boys?': Views from US and Chinese mixed-sex friendship groups. In D. I. Slobin, J. Gerhardt, A. Kyratzis, and J. Guo (eds), Social interaction, social context, and language (pp. 555±577). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  210. LaFrance, M., and Hahn, E. (1994). The disappearing agent: gender stereotypes, interpersonal verbs, and implicit causality. In C. Roman, S. Juhasz, and C. Miller (eds), The women and language debate: a sourcebook (pp. 348±363). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
  211. Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman's place. Language in Society, 2, 45±80.
  212. Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman's place. New York: Harper and Row.
  213. Lakoff, R. (1990). Talking power: the politics of language. New York: Basic Books. Laqueur, T. (1990). Making sex: body and gender from Greeks to Freud. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  214. Lawrence, S. G., Stucky, N. P., and Hopper, R. (1990). The effects of sex dialects and sex stereotypes on speech evaluations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 9(3), 209±224.
  215. Lees, S. (1983). How boys slag off girls. New Society, 13, 51±53.
  216. Lees, S. (1997). Ruling passions: sexual violence, reputation, and the law. Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press.
  217. Leet-Pellegrini, H. M. (1979). Conversational dominance as a function of gender and expertise. In H. Giles, W. P. Robinson, and P. M. Smith (eds), Language: social psychological perspectives (pp. 97±104). Oxford: Pergamon.
  218. Lemert, C., and Branam, A. (1997). The Goffman reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  219. Levi, J. (1995). Last one across is a big girl's blouse: an examination of language use and gender in outdoor activities. Journal of Adventure and Outdoor Leadership, 12(1), 25±26.
  220. Livia, A. (1995). `I ought to throw a buick at you': ®ctional representations of butch/femme speech. In K. Hall and M. Bucholtz (eds), Gender articulated (pp. 245±278). New York: Routledge.
  221. Livia, A., and Hall, K. (1997). Queerly phrased. Language, gender and sexuality. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  222. Lott, B. (1997). The personal and social correlates of a gender difference ideology. Journal of Social Issues, 53(2), 279±298.
  223. Maccoby, E. E., and Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  224. MacKay, D. G. (1979). Language, thought and social attitudes. In H. Giles, W. P. Robinson, and P. M. Smith (eds), Language. Social psychological perspectives (pp. 89±96). Oxford: Pergamon.
  225. MacKay, D. G., and Fulkerson, D. C. (1979). On the comprehension and production of pronouns. Journal of Verbal Learning and Behaviour, 18, 661± 673. Maltz, D. N., and Borker, R. A. (1982). A cultural approach to male±female miscommunication. In J. Gumperz (ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 196± 216). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  226. Marecek, J. (1995a). Psychology and feminism: can this relationship be saved? In D. C. Stanton and A. J. Stewart (eds), Feminisms in the academy (pp. 101±132). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
  227. Marecek, J. (1995b). Gender, politics, and psychology's ways of knowing. American Psychologist, 50(3), 162±163.
  228. Marshall, H., and Wetherell, M. (1989). Talking about career identities: a discourse analysis perspective. In S. Skevington and D. Baker (eds), The social identity of women (pp. 106±130). London: Sage.
  229. Martin, E. (1991). The egg and the sperm: how science has constructed a romance based on stereotypical male±female roles. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 16, 485±501.
  230. Martyna, W. (1980a). Beyond the he/man approach: the case for non-sexist language. Signs, 5(3), 482±493.
  231. Martyna, W. (1980b). The psychology of the generic masculine. In S. McConnell- Ginet, R. Borker, and N. Furman (eds), Women and language in literature and society (pp. 69±78). New York: Praegar.
  232. McArthur, L. A., and Eisen, S. V. (1976). Achievements of male and female storybook characters as determinants of achievement behaviour by boys and girls. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 463±473.
  233. McConnell, A. R., and Fazio, R. H. (1996). Women as men and people: effects of gender-marked language. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(10), 1004±1013.
  234. McConnell-Ginet, S. (1983). Intonation in a man's world. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae, and N. Henley (eds), Language, gender and society (pp. 69±88). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  235. McConnell-Ginet, S., Borker, R., and Furman, N. (eds). (1980). Women and language in literature and society. New York: Praegar.
  236. McGuire, W. J., and McGuire, C. V. (1992). Psychological signi®cance of seem- ingly arbitrary word-order regularities: the case of kin pairs. In G. R. Semin and K. Fiedler (eds), Language, interaction and social cognition (pp. 214±236). London: Sage.
  237. McMillan, J. R., Clifton, A. K., McGrath, D., and Gale, L. (1977). Women's language: uncertainty or interpersonal sensitivity and emotionality. Sex Roles, 3(6), 545±559.
  238. McMinn, M. R., Lindsay, S. F., Hannum, L. E., and Troyer, P. K. (1990). Does sexist language re¯ect personal characteristics? Sex Roles, 23(7/8), 389±396.
  239. McNabb, S. L. (1986). Stereotypes and interaction conventions of Eskimos and non-Eskimos. In Y. Y. Kim (ed.), Interethnic communication: recent research (pp. 21±41). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  240. Messner, M. M., Duncan, M. C., and Jansen, K. (1993). Separating the men from the girls: the gendered language of televised sports. Gender and Society, 7(1), 121±137.
  241. Michard, C., and Viollet, C. (1991). Sex and gender in linguistics: ®fteen years of feminist research in the United States and Germany. Feminist Issues, 11(1), 53±
  242. Miller, C., and Swift, K. (1976). Words and women. New York: Anchor Press.
  243. Mills, S. (1995). Language and gender: interdisciplinary perspectives. New York: Longman.
  244. Moonwomon, B. (1985). Toward the study of lesbian speech. In S. Bremner, N. Caskey, and B. Moonwomon (eds), Proceedings of the ®rst Berkeley women and language conference (pp. 96±107). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group.
  245. Moonwomon-Baird, B. (1997). Toward the study of lesbian speech. In A. Livia and K. Hall (eds), Queerly phrased: language, gender, and sexuality (pp. 202±213). New York: Oxford University Press.
  246. Morawski, J. G. (1990). Toward the unimagined: feminism and epistemology in psychology. In R. T. Hare-Mustin and J. Marecek (eds), Making a difference: psychology and the construction of gender (pp. 150±183). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  247. Morgan, E. (1972). The descent of woman. London: Corgi.
  248. Mott, H., and Petrie, H. (1995). Women's workplace interactions: women's linguistic behaviour. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14(3), 324± 336. Moulton, J., Robinson, G. M., and Elias, C. (1978). Sex bias in language use: `neutral' pronouns that aren't. American Psychologist (November), 1032±1036.
  249. Mulac, A., and Bradac, J. J. (1995). Women's style in problem solving interaction: powerless, or simply feminine? In P. J. Kalb¯eisch and M. J. Cody (eds), Gender, power, and communication in human relationships (pp. 83±104). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  250. Mulac, A., and Lundell, T. L. (1986). Linguistic contributors to the gender-linked language effect. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 5, 81±101.
  251. Mulac, A., Lundell, T. L., and Bradac, J. J. (1986). Male/female language differ- ences and attributional consequences in a public speaking situation: toward an explanation of the gender-linked language effect. Communication Monographs, 53, 115±129.
  252. Murdock, N. L., and Forsyth, D. R. (1985). Is gender-biased language sexist? A perceptual approach. Psychology of Women Quarterly (1), 39±41.
  253. Ng, S. H. (1990). Androcentric coding of Man and His in memory by language users. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 455±464.
  254. Ng, S. H. (1991). Evaluation by females and males of speeches worded in the masculine, feminine, or gender-inclusive reference form. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 186±197.
  255. Ng, S. H., and Bradac, J. J. (1993). Power in language. London: Sage.
  256. Ng, S. H., Chan, K. K., Weatherall, A., and Moody, J. (1993). Polarized semantic change of words associated with females and males. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12(1/2), 66±80.
  257. Nikander, P. (1995). The critical potential of discursive social psychology. Nordiske Udkast, 2, 3±15.
  258. Nilsen, A. P. (1977a). Linguistic sexism as a social issue. In A. P. Nilsen, H. Bosmajian, H. C. Gershuny, and J. P. Stanley (eds), Sexism in language (pp. 1± 25). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers.
  259. Nilsen, A. P. (1977b). Sexism in children's books and elementary classroom materials. In A. P. Nilsen, H. Bosmajian, H. C. Gershuny, and J. P. Stanley (eds), Sexism in language (pp. 161±179). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers.
  260. O'Barr, W. M., and Atkins, B. K. (1980). `Women's language' or `powerless language'? In S. McConnell-Ginet, R. Borker, and N. Furman (eds), Women and language in literature and society (pp. 93±110). New York: Praegar.
  261. Ochs, E. (1992). Indexing gender. In A. D. Duranti and C. Goodwin (eds), Rethinking context: language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 335±358). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  262. Ohara, Y. (1992). Gender dependent pitch levels: a comparative study in Japanese and English. In K. Hall, M. Bucholtz, and B. Moonwomon (eds), Locating power. Proceedings of the second Berkeley women and language conference (Vol. 2, pp. 469±477). Berkeley, CA: University of Berkeley.
  263. Okamoto, S. (1994). `Gendered' speech styles and social identity among young Japanese women. In M. Bucholtz, A. C. Liang, L. Sutton, and C. Hines (eds), Cultural performances. Proceedings of the third Berkeley women and language conference (pp. 569±581). Berkeley, CA: University of Berkeley.
  264. Okamoto, S. (1995). `Tasteless' Japanese: Less `feminine' speech among young Japanese women. In K. Hall and M. Bucholtz (eds), Gender articulated. Language and the socially constructed self (pp. 297±325). London and New York: Routledge.
  265. Otta, E. (1997). Assigning a name to a child: gender differences in two overlapping generations. Journal of Psychology, 131(2), 133±142.
  266. Pauwels, A. (1998). Women changing language. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
  267. Penelope, J. (1990). Speaking freely: unlearning the lies of the father tongue. New York: Pergamon.
  268. Pen®eld, J. (1987). Women and language in transition. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
  269. Peplau, L. A., and Conrad, E. (1989). Beyond nonsexist research: the perils of feminist methods in psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 379±400.
  270. Petrie, H., and Johnson, C. L. (1991). On the psychology of personal names: a boy named Sue? Paper presented at the British Psychological Society London Conference, City University, London.
  271. Phillips, B. S. (1990). Nicknames and sex role stereotypes. Sex Roles, 23(5/6), 281± 289. Pomerantz, A., and Fehr, B. J. (1997). Conversation analysis. In T. VanDijk (ed.), Discourse studies: a multidisciplinary introduction (pp. 64±91). London: Sage.
  272. Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality. Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London: Sage.
  273. Potter, J., and Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage.
  274. Potts, A. (1998). The science/®ction of sex: John Gray's `Mars and Venus in the Bedroom'. Sexualities, 1(2), 153±173.
  275. Poynton, C. (1989). Language and gender: making the difference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  276. Rakow, L. F., and Kramarae, C. (eds) (1990). The revolution in words: righting women, 1868±1871. New York: Routledge.
  277. Rancer, A. S., and Dierks-Stewart, K. J. (1987). Biological and psychological gender differences in trait argumentativeness. In L. P. Stewart and S. Ting- Toomey (eds), Communication, gender, and sex roles in diverse interaction contexts (pp. 18±30). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
  278. Riger, S. (1997). From snapshots to videotape: new directions in research on gender differences. Journal of Social Issues, 53(2), 395±408.
  279. Ryan, E. (1979). Why do low-prestige language varieties persist? In H. Giles and R. St Clair (eds), Language and social psychology (pp. 145±157). Oxford: Blackwell.
  280. Sachs, J. (1975). Cues to the identi®cation of sex in children's speech. In B. Thorne and N. Henley (eds), Language and sex: difference and dominance (pp. 152± 171). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  281. Sattel, J. (1983). Men, inexpressiveness, and power. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae, and N. Henley (eds), Language, gender and society (pp. 118±124). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  282. Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Whose text? Whose context? Discourse and Society, 8(2), 165±187.
  283. Scheuble, L., and Johnson, D. R. (1993). Marital name change: plans and attitudes of college students. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 747±754.
  284. Schneider, J. W., and Hacker, S. L. (1973). Sex role imagery and use of the generic `Man' in introductory texts: a case in the sociology of sociology. The American Psychologist, 8, 12±18.
  285. Schulz, M. R. (1975). The semantic derogation of woman. In B. Thorne and N. Henley (eds), Language and sex: difference and dominance (pp. 64±75). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  286. Semin, G. R., and Fiedler, K. (1988). The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 558±568.
  287. Seth-Smith, M., Ashton, R., and McFarland, K. (1989). A dual-task study of sex differences in language reception and production. Cortex, 25, 425±431.
  288. Shaywitz, B. A., Shaywitz, S. E., Pugh, K. R., Constable, R. T., Skudlarski, P., Fulbright, R. K., Bronen, R. A., Fletcher, J. M., Shankweller, D. P., Katz, L., and Gore, J. C. (1995). Sex differences in functional organization of the brain for language. Nature, 373(6515), 605±609.
  289. Sherif, C. (1979). Bias in psychology. In J. Sherman and E. T. Beck (eds), The prism of sex: essays in the sociology of knowledge (pp. 93±133). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
  290. Shields, S. (1975). Functionalism, Darwinism, and the psychology of women: a study of social myth. American Psychologist, 30, 739±754.
  291. Siaan, G. (1994). Gender, sex and sexuality: contemporary psychology and perspectives. London: Taylor & Francis.
  292. Silverstein, L. B. (1996). Evolutionary psychology and the search for sex differences. American Psychologist, 51, 160±161.
  293. Simkins-Bullock, J. A., and Wildman, B. G. (1991). An investigation into the relationships between gender and language. Sex Roles, 24(3/4), 149±160.
  294. Skevington, S., and Baker, D. (eds) (1989). The social identity of women. London: Sage.
  295. Smith, P. M. (1979). Sex markers in speech. In H. Giles (ed.), Social markers in speech (pp. 109±146). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  296. Smith, P. M. (1985). Language, the sexes and society. New York and Oxford: Blackwell.
  297. Speer, S. A. (1999). Feminism and conversation analysis: an oxymoron? Feminism and Psychology, 9(4), 471±478.
  298. Speer, S. A., and Potter, J. (2000). The management of heterosexist talk: conver- sational resources and prejudiced claims. Discourse and Society, 11(4), 543±572.
  299. Spender, D. (1980). Man-made language. Boston and London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  300. Spender, D. (1995). Nattering on the net: women, power and cyberspace. Melbourne: Spinifex.
  301. Stanley, J. P. (1977). Gender-marking in American english: usage and reference. In A. P. Nilsen, H. Bosmajian, H. C. Gershuny, and I. P. Stanley (eds), Sexism in language (pp. 43±74). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers.
  302. Stannard, U. (1977). Mrs Man. San Francisco, CA: Germainbooks.
  303. Stirling, L. (1987). Language and gender in Australian newspapers. In A. Pauwels (ed.), Women and language in Australian and New Zealand society (pp. 108± 128). Sydney: Australian Professional Publications.
  304. Stokoe, E. H. (1998). Talking about gender: the conversational construction of gender categories in academic discourse. Discourse and Society, 8(2), 217±240.
  305. Stokoe, E. H. (2000). Toward a conversation analytic approach to gender and discourse. Feminism and Psychology, 10(4), 590±601.
  306. Stokoe, E. H., and Smithson, J. (2001). Making gender relevant: conversation analysis and gender categories in interaction. Discourse and Society, 12, 217± 244. Strathern, M. (1992). After nature: English kinship in the late twentieth century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  307. Stringer, J. L., and Hopper, R. (1998). Generic `he' in conversation. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 84, 209±211.
  308. Stubbe, M., Lane, C., Hilder, J., Vine, B., Vine, E., Holmes, J., Marra, M., and Weatherall, A. (1999). Multiple discourse analyses of a workplace interaction (Wellington Working Paper in Linguistics 11): Victoria University of Wellington.
  309. Stubbe, M., Lane, L., Hilder, J., Vine, E., Vine, B., Holmes, J., Marra, M., and Weatherall, A. (in press). Multiple discourse analyses of a workplace interaction. Discourse Processes.
  310. Sutton, L. A. (1995). Bitches and skankly hobags. In K. Hall and M. Bucholtz (eds), Gender articulated (pp. 279±296). London and New York: Routledge.
  311. Swann, J. (1992). Girls, boys and language. Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
  312. Tannen, D. (1986). That's not what I meant: how conversational style makes or breaks relationships. New York: Ballantine Books.
  313. Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand: women and men in conversation. New York: Ballantine Books.
  314. Tannen, D. (1997). Women and men talking: an interactional sociolinguistic approach. In M. R. Walsh (ed.), Women, men, and gender (pp. 82±90). New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.
  315. Tavris, C. (1992). The mismeasure of woman. New York: Simon and Schuster.
  316. Tavris, C. (1993). The mismeasure of woman. Feminism and Psychology, 3, 149± 168. Thaler, B. (1987). Gender stereotyping in the comic strips. In L. P. Stewart and S. Ting-Toomey (eds), Communication, gender, and sex roles in diverse interaction contexts (pp. 189±199). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Co.
  317. Thomson, R., and Murachver, T. (2001). Predicting gender from electronic discourse. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 193±208.
  318. Thorne, B. (1990). Children and gender: construction of difference. In D. Rhode (ed.), Theoretical perspectives in sexual difference (pp. 100±113). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  319. Thorne, B., and Henley, N. (1975). An overview of language, gender and society. In B. Thorne and N. Henley (eds), Language and sex: difference and dominance (pp. 5±42). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  320. Thorne, B., Kramarae, C., and Henley, N. (eds) (1983). Language, gender, and society. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  321. Titscher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R., and Vetter, E. (2000). Methods of text and discourse analysis. London: Sage.
  322. Trudgill, P. (1972). Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the urban, British English of Norwich. Language in Society, 1, 179±195.
  323. Uchida, A. (1992). When `difference' is `dominance': a critique of the `anti-power- based' cultural approach to sex differences. Language in Society, 21(4), 547± 568. Unger, R. (1992). Will the real sex differences please stand up? Feminism and Psychology, 2(2), 231±238.
  324. Ussher, J. (1992). Sex differences in performance: fact, ®ction or fantasy? Handbook of Human Performance, 3, 63±94.
  325. Vetterling-Braggin, M. (ed.) (1981). Sexist language: a modern philosophical approach. Totawa, NJ: Rowman and Little®eld.
  326. Walby, S. (1990). Theorizing patriarchy. Oxford: Blackwell.
  327. Wallston, B. S., and Grady, K. E. (1985). Integrating the feminist critique and the crisis in social psychology: another look at research methods. In V. O'Leary, R. H. Unger, and B. S. Wallston (eds), Women, gender, and social psychology (pp. 7±33). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  328. Walsh, M. R. (ed.) (1997). Women, men and gender: ongoing debates. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
  329. Weatherall, A. (1996). Language about women and men: an example from popular culture. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15(1), 59±75.
  330. Weatherall, A. (1998). Re-visioning gender and language research. Women and Language, 21, 1±9.
  331. Weatherall, A. (2000a). Gender relevance in talk-in-interaction and discourse. Discourse and Society, 11(2), 290±292.
  332. Weatherall, A. (2000b). Shifting from gender and language to gender and discourse. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference of Language and Social Psychology, Cardiff, Wales.
  333. Weatherall, A., and Walton, M. (1999). The metaphorical construction of sexual experience in a speech community of New Zealand university students. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 479±498.
  334. Weatherall, A., Gavey, N., and Potts, A. (in press). Whose words are they anyway? Feminism and Psychology.
  335. Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
  336. Weisstein, N. (1993). Psychology constructs the female; or the fantasy life of the male psychologist (with some attention to the fantasies of his friends, the male biologist and the male anthropologist). Feminism and Psychology, 3, 195±210.
  337. West, C. (1995). Women's competence in conversation. Discourse and Society, 6(1), 107±131.
  338. West, C., and Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1, 125±151.
  339. Wetherell, M. (1998). Positioning and interpretative repertoires: conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse and Society, 9(3), 387± 412. Wetherell, M., and Edley, N. (1998). Gender practices: Steps in the analysis of men and masculinities. In K. Henwood, C. Grif®n, and A. Phoenix (eds), Standpoints and differences: essays in the practice of feminist psychology (pp. 156±174). London: Sage.
  340. Wetherell, M., Stiven, H., and Potter, J. (1987). Unequal egalitarianism: a pre- liminary study of discourse and employment opportunities. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 59±71.
  341. Whorf, B. (1956). Language, thought and reality: selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, ed. J.B. Carroll. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  342. Widdicombe, S. (1995). Identity, politics and talk: a case for the mundane and the everyday. In S. Wilkinson and C. Kitzinger (eds), Feminism and discourse: psychological perspectives (pp. 106±127). London: Sage.
  343. Widdicombe, S. (1998). Identity as an analyst's and a participant's resource. In C. Antaki and S. Widdicombe (eds), Identities in talk (pp. 191±207). London: Sage.
  344. Widdicombe, S., and Woof®tt, R. (1995). The language of youth subcultures: social identity in action. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
  345. Wilkinson, S. (1986). Sighting possibilities: diversity and commonality in feminist research. In S. Wilkinson (ed.), Feminist social psychology: developing theory and practice (pp. 7±24). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
  346. Wilkinson, S., and Kitzinger, C. (1995). Feminism and discourse. London: Sage.
  347. Williams, J., and Giles, H. (1978). The changing status of women in society: an intergroup perspective. In H. Tajfel (ed.), Differentiation between social groups (pp. 431±446). London: Academic Press.
  348. Wilson, E., and Ng, S. H. (1988). Sex bias in visual images evoked by generics: a New Zealand study. Sex Roles, 18(3/4), 159±168.
  349. Wodak, R. (ed.) (1997). Gender and discourse. London: Sage.
  350. Wolfson, N., and Manes, J. (1981). `Don't ``Dear'' me!'. In S. McConnell-Ginet, R. Borker, and N. Furman (eds), Women and language in literature and society (pp. 79±91). New York: Praegar.
  351. Wood, J. (1997). Gendered lives: communication, gender, and culture (2nd edn). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
  352. Zhan, C. J. (1989). The bases for differing evaluations of male and female speech: evidence from ratings of transcribed conversation. Communication Monographs, 56(1), 59±74.
  353. Zimmerman, D. H. (1992). The interactional organization of calls for emergency assistance. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds), Talk at work: interaction in institutionalised settings (pp. 418±469). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  354. Zimmerman, D. H., and West, C. (1975). Sex roles, interruptions, and silences in conversation. In B. Thorne and N. Henley (eds), Language and sex: difference and dominance (pp. 105±129). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  355. Zweigenhaft, R., Hayes, K., and Hagan, M. (1980). The psychological impact of names. Journal of Social Psychology, 110, 203±210.
About the author
Ann Weatherall
Victoria University of Wellington, Faculty Member
Papers
94
Followers
103
View all papers from Ann Weatherallarrow_forward

Related papers

Making gender relevant: The construction and negotiation of gender categories in discourse
Elizabeth Stokoe

In this article, we critically evaluate a conversation analytic approach to the study of the links between gender and language from a feminist perspective. In so doing, we engage in the recent series of exchanges about conversation analysis (CA) and other strands of discourse analysis that have been published in Discourse & Society. We consider talk from two sets of discourse data, focusing on participants’ orientation to gender categories as they crop up in the interactions. We suggest that a CA approach produces a rich understanding of the links between discourse and gender. However, we are critical of several, often unexamined aspects and conundrums of conversation analytic methodology. First, we consider the extent to which the ‘analytic stances’ of feminism and conversation analysis are compatible. Second, we question whether, as Schegloff (1997) suggests, it is fruitful to rely on descriptions of and orientations to gender solely in participants’ terms, as well as problematizi...

View PDFchevron_right
Term Paper Introduction to Gender and Discourse
Muhammad Hayder

This paper focuses on the literature that has contributed to the understanding of the major research questions underlying two major strands, language and gender, concentrating on the development of the literature from the deficit and dominance models to the social constructivist era of post-modernism in order to provide a context for recent developments in language and gender theories. The study of language and gender has increasingly become the study of discourse and gender. While phonological, lexical, and other kinds of linguistic analysis continue to be influential, the interdisciplinary investigation of discourse-level phenomena, always a robust area of language and gender scholarship, has become the central approach of the field.

View PDFchevron_right
Gender, language, conversation analysis and feminism
Elizabeth Stokoe

Discourse & Society, 2002

View PDFchevron_right
Gender Language and Discourse
Hikmat Ahmed
View PDFchevron_right
Making Gender Relevant: Conversation Analysis and Gender Categories in Interaction
Janet Smithson

Discourse & Society, 2001

gender and language from a feminist perspective. In so doing, we engage in the recent series of exchanges about conversation analysis (CA) and other strands of discourse analysis that have been published in Discourse & Society. We consider talk from two sets of discourse data, focusing on participants' orientation to gender categories as they crop up in the interactions. We suggest that a CA approach produces a rich understanding of the links between discourse and gender. However, we are critical of several, often unexamined aspects and conundrums of conversation analytic methodology. First, we consider the extent to which the 'analytic stances' of feminism and conversation analysis are compatible. Second, we question whether, as Schegloff (1997) suggests, it is fruitful to rely on descriptions of and orientations to gender solely in participants' terms, as well as problematizing the notion of 'orienting to gender' itself. Finally, while we propose CA is a useful tool for making claims about the relevance of gender in conversational interaction, and that such claims are grounded in speakers' orientations, we suggest that culture and common-sense knowledge, of both members and analysts, are largely unacknowledged and unexplicated resources in CA.

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2026 Academia. All rights reserved