Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T06:33:20.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A question of context: Directive use at a morris team meeting1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Kimberly Jones
Kimberly Jones
Affiliation:
Department of East Asian Studies, Franklin 404, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies of speech acts such as directives and of gender and language use have rarely considered the details of the speech context. Comparing men's and women's use of directives at a dance group meeting, I find little difference in the frequency with which they direct others, the targets of their directives, or the types of directives used. Status variations within the group, although more important than gender, still fail to show the primary factors influencing the use of directives. Directive usage cannot be adequately understood without considering the specific contexts in which directives occur. Potentially face-threatening, directives are used most and expressed most strongly when another threat to conversation outweighs the threat of the directive, when the bonds between participants are strong enough to mitigate the threat, or when a high degree of involvement in a conversation renders the threat less potent and encourages the expression of solidarity and interest. (Conversation analysis, directives, gender and language use, speech acts, English)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , September 1992 , pp. 427 - 445
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. J. (1982). Verbal and nonverbal behavior in single-sex and mixed-sex groups: Are traditional sex roles changing. Psychological Reports 51:127–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, K., & Harnish, R. M. (1982). Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bellinger, D. C., & Gleason, J. B. (1982). Sex differences in parental directives to young children. Sex Roles 8:1123–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. (1980). How and why are women more polite: Some evidence from a Mayan community. In McConnell-Ginet, S., Borker, R., & Furman, N. (eds.), Women and language in literature and society. New York: Praeger. 111–36.Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, D., McAlinden, F., & O'Leary, K. (1988). Lakoff in context: The social and linguistic functions of tag questions. In Coates, J. & Cameron, D. (eds.), Women in their speech communities: New perspectives on language and sex. New York: Longman. 74–93.Google Scholar
Edelsky, C. (1981). Who's got the floor. Language in Society 10:383–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1976). “Is Sybil there?”: The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society 5:25–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1977). Wait for me, roller skate. In Ervin-Tripp, S. & Mitchell-Kernan, C. (eds.), Child discourse. New York: Academic. 165–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1981). How to make and understand a request. In Parret, H., Sbisa, M., & Verschueren, J. (eds.), Possibilities and limitations of pragmatics. (Studies in Language Companion Series, 7.) (Proceedings of the Conference on Pragmatics, Urbino, July 8–14, 1979.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishman, P. (1983). Interaction: The work women do. In Thorne, B., Kramarae, C., & Henley, N. (eds.), Language, gender and society. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 89–101.Google Scholar
Garvey, C. (1975). Requests and responses in children's speech. Journal of Child Language. 2:41–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleason, J. B., & Greif, E. B. (1983). Men's speech to young children. In Thorne, B., Kramarae, C., & Henley, N. (eds.), Language, gender and society. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 140–50.Google Scholar
Golinkoff, R. M., & Ames, G. J. (1979). A comparison of fathers' and mothers' speech with their young children. Child Development 50:28–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbert, R. K. (1990). Sex-based differences in compliment behavior. Language in Society 19:201–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J. (1984). Women's language: A functional approach. General Linguistics 24:149–78.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1986). Functions of you know in women's and men's speech. Language in Society 15:1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J. (1988). Paying compliments: A sex-preferential positive politeness strategy. Journal of Pragmatics 12:445–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House, J., & Kaspar, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In Coulmas, F. (ed.), Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech. The Hague: Mouton. 157–85.Google Scholar
Ide, S., Hori, M., Kawasaki, A., Ikuta, S., & Haga, H. (1986). Sex differences and politeness in Japanese. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 58:25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalčik, S. (1975). “…like Ann's gynecologist or the time I was almost raped”: Personal narratives in women's rap groups. In Farrar, C. (ed.), Women and folklore. Austin: University of Texas Press. 3–11.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. O. (1974). Norm-makers, norm-breakers: Uses of speech by men and women in a Malagasy community. In Bauman, R. & Sherzer, J. (eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 125–43.Google Scholar
Labov, W., & Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman's place. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Leet-Pelligrini, H. M. (1980). Conversational dominance as a function of gender and expertise. In Giles, H., Robinson, W. P., & Smith, P. M. (eds.), Language: Social psychological perspectives. New York: Pergamon. 97–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maltz, D. N., & Borker, R. A. (1982). A cultural approach to male/female miscommunication. In Gumperz, J. J. (ed.), Language and social identity. New York: Cambridge University Press. 196–216.Google Scholar
Murphy, S. K. (1989). Influences of sex composition and topic management in initial interactions. In Lont, C. M. & Friedley, S. A. (eds.), Breaking boundaries: Sex and gender diversity in communication. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Press. 75–94.Google Scholar
Murray, S. O., & Covelli, L. H. (1988). Women and men speaking at the same time. Journal of Pragmatics 12:103–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Barr, W. M., & Atkins, B. K. (1980). “Women's language” or “powerless language?” In McConnell-Ginet, S., Borker, R., & Furman, N. (eds.), Women and language in literature and society. New York: Praeger. 93–110.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. (1987). The impact of stratification and socialization on men's and women's speech in Western Samoa. In Philips, S. U., Steele, S., & Tanz, C. (eds.), Language, gender, and sex in comparative perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 50–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, B. (1988). Power and politeness in conversation: Encoding of face-threatening acts at church business meetings. Anthropological Linguistics 30:68–93.Google Scholar
Pearson, B. (1989). “Role-ing out control” at church business meetings: Directing and disagreeing. Language Sciences 11: 289–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philips, S. (1980). Sex differences and languages. Annual Review of Anthropology 9:523–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philips, S., & Reynolds, A. (1987). The interaction of variable syntax and discourse structure 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. 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pufahl Bax, I. (1986). How to assign work in an office: A comparison of spoken and written directives in American English. Journal of Pragmatics 10:673–92.Google Scholar
Reiss, N. (1985). Speech act taxonomy as a tool for ethnographic description: An analysis based on videotapes of continuous behavior in two New York households. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings. In Psathas, G. (ed.). Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington. 23–78.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5:1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. McH., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1981). New York Jewish conversational style. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 30:133–49.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand: Men and women in conversation. New York: William Morrow.Google Scholar
Weigel, M. M. & Weigel, R. M. (1985). Directive use in a migrant agricultural community: A test of Ervin-Tripp's hypotheses. Language in Society 14:63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1983). Small insults: A study of interruptions in cross-sex conversations between unacquainted persons. In Thorne, B., Kramarae, C., & Henley, N. (eds.), Language, gender and society. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 103–18.Google Scholar
Wolfson, N. (1981). Pretty is as pretty does: A speech act view of sex roles. Applied Linguistics 5:236–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar