Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T07:13:21.579Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Complimenting and involvement in peer reviews: Gender variation1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Donna M. Johnson  and
Duane H. Roen
Donna M. Johnson
Affiliation:
Department of English ML 67, Rm 445, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721
Duane H. Roen
Affiliation:
Department of English ML 67, Rm 445, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents an analysis of gender differences in the use of compliments in one genre of written discourse. The data base is a set of 47 peer reviews of academic papers written by graduate students in the form of letters. Drawing on work from several theoretical perspectives, we analyzed the forms, strategies, and discourse functions of compliments in these papers. We found that women made significantly greater use of compliment intensifiers and personal referencing than did men. In using compliments to structure discourse, women more often framed the text with both opening and closing compliments. Consistent patterns suggested that women writers accommodated to the gender of their addressee more than did men, resulting in a discernible female-female complimenting style. The study illustrates specific ways that gender is involved in being polite and in creating and sustaining a sense of involvement in written discourse. (Complimenting, politeness, sociolinguistics, gender, discourse strategies, cross-sex communication, English)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 1992 , pp. 27 - 57
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aries, E. (1987). Gender and communication. In Shaver, P. & Hendrick, C. (eds.), Sex and gender. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 149–76.Google Scholar
Bailey, R. W. (1985). Negotiation and meaning: Revising the context of situation. In Benson, J. D. & Greaves, W. S. (eds.), Systemic perspective on discourse. Vol. 2. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 1–17.Google Scholar
Bern, S. (1987). Gender schema theory and the romantic tradition. In Shaver, P. & Hendrick, C. (eds.), Sex and gender. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 251–71.Google Scholar
Boxer, D. (1989). Speech acts as openers in the emergence of peer relationships. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, San Antonio.Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universal in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Originally published as: P. Brown & S. C. Levinson. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (ed.), Questions and politeness. Cambridge University Press.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W., & Danielwicz, J. (1987). Properties of spoken and written language. (Technical Report No. 5.) Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, and Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University, Center for the Study of Writing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coates, J. (1986). Women, men, and language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Coupland, N., Coupland, J., Giles, H., & Henwood, K. (1988). Accommodating the elderly: Invoking and extending a theory. Language in Society 17:1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couture, B. (1985). A systemic network for analyzing writing quality. In Benson, J. D. & Greaves, W. S. (eds.), Systemic perspectives on discourse. Vol. 2. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 67–87.Google Scholar
Diogenes, M., Roen, D. H., & Moneyhun, C. (1986). Transactional evaluation: The right question at the right time. Journal of Teaching Writing 5(1):59–70.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Verbal reports on thinking. In Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (eds.), Introspection in second language research. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. 24–53.Google Scholar
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (eds.) (1987). From product to process: Introspective methods in second language research. In Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (eds.), Introspection in second language research. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. 5–23.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. (1985). The study of religious discourse. In Tannen, D. & Alatis, J. E. (eds.), Languages and linguistics: The interdependence of theory, data, and application. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 205–13.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J., & Cook-Gumperz, J. (1982). Introduction: Language and the communication of social identity. In Gumperz, J. J. (ed.), Language and social identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1–21.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social semiotic perspective. Victoria: Deakin University.Google Scholar
Herbert, R. K. (1990). Sex-based differences in compliment behavior. Language in Society 19:201–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J. (1986). Compliments and compliment responses in New Zealand English. Anthropological Linguistics 28:485–508.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1988). Paying compliments: A sex-preferential politeness strategy. Journal of Pragmatics 12:445–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J., & Brown, D. F. (1987). Teachers and students learning about compliments. TESOL Quarterly 21:523–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. M. (1989). Politeness strategies in L2 written discourse. Journal of Intensive English Studies 3:71–90.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. M. (1992). Compliments and politeness in peer-review texts. Applied Linguistics 13:52–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. M., & Yang, A. W. (1989). Politeness strategies in peer-review texts. Pragmatics and Language Learning 1199–114.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (1990). Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics 14:193–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1987). La description des échanges en analyse conversationnelle: L'exemple du compliment. DRLAV-Revue de Linguistique 36–37:1–53.Google Scholar
Koch, R. (1982). Syllogisms and superstitions: The current state of responding to writing. Language Arts 59:464–71.Google Scholar
Kraemer, D. (1990). No exit: A play of literacy and gender. Journal of Advanced Composition 10:305–19.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Maltz, D. N., & Borker, R. A. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In Gumperz, J. J. (ed.), Language and social identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 196–216.Google Scholar
Manes, J. (1983). Compliments: A mirror of cultural values. In Wolfson, N. & Judd, E. (eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 96–102.Google Scholar
Manes, J., & Wolfson, N. (1981). The compliment formula. In Coulmas, F. (ed.), Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepattemed speech. Berlin: Mouton. 115–32.Google Scholar
Mohr, H. (1987). How to talk Minnesotan: A visitor's guide. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Olshtain, E. (1989, 03). Complaints and compliments from a “payoff” perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, San Antonio.Google Scholar
Olshtain, E. (1991, 03). Compliments and reactions to compliments in a society with a positive politeness orientation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, New York.Google Scholar
Philips, S. U. (1987). Introduction: The interaction of social and biological processes in women's and men's speech. In Philips, S. U., Steele, S., & Tanz, C. (eds.), Language, gender, and sex in comparative perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1978). Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints. In Schenkein, J. (ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction. New York: Academic. 79–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poynton, C. (1989). Language and gender: Making the difference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roen, D. H. (1987). Learning to bunt/learning to write. Journal of Business Communication 24(1):65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roen, D. H. (1989). Developing effective assignments for second language writers. In Johnson, D. M. & Roen, D. H. (eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students. White Plains, NY: Longman. 193–206.Google Scholar
Stock, P., & Robinson, J. (1989). Literacy as conversation: Classroom talk as text building. In Bloome, D. (ed.), Classrooms and literacy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 310–88.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1990a). Gender differences in topical coherence: Creating involvement in best friends' talk. Discourse Processes 13:73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D. (1990a). You just don't understand. New York: William Morrow.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1987). English speech act verbs: A semantic dictionary. Sydney: Academic.Google Scholar
Wolfson, N. (1983). An empirically based analysis of complimenting in American English. In Wolfson, N. & Judd, E. (eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition. Rowley, MA: New-bury House. 82–95.Google Scholar
Wolfson, N. (1984). Pretty is as pretty does: A speech act view of sex roles. Applied Linguistics 5:236–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfson, N. (1989a). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. New York: Harper & Row/Newbury House.Google Scholar
Wolfson, N. (1989b). The social dynamics of native and nonnative variation in complimenting behavior. In Eisenstein, M. (ed.), The dynamic interlanguage: Empirical studies in second language variation. New York: Plenum. 219–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, A. W. (1990). Exploring the genre of peer review. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Zak, F. (1990). Exclusively positive responses to student writing. Journal of Basic Writing 9:40–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar