Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T06:32:08.772Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When “difference” is “dominance”: A critique of the “anti-power-based” cultural approach to sex differences1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Aki Uchida
Aki Uchida
Affiliation:
Department of Speech Communication, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 244 Lincoln Hall, 702 South Wright Street, Urbana, IL 61801
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article analyzes the dichotomization of two opposing approaches to studying sex differences in language use: the “difference/cultural” approach, which treats women and men as having “different but equally valid” rules of conversation, and the “dominance/power-based” approach, which focuses on male dominance and sexual division of labor in talk. I critique the stance taken by the difference approach. First, its notion of women and men as belonging to different “cultures” is too simplistic to account for everything that occurs in mixed-sex conversation. Second, the dichotomization of “power” and “culture” as two separate, independent concepts is inappropriate, because social interaction always occurs in the context of a patriarchal society. As a direction for further research, I propose that the relationship between gender and language should be approached from the viewpoint that we are doing gender in interaction. (Sociolinguistics, communication, conversational style, gender, sex differences)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , December 1992 , pp. 547 - 568
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
Aries, E.J., & Johnson, F.L. (1983). Close friendship in adulthood: Conversational content between same-sex friends. Sex Roles 9: 1183–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruner, E.M., & Kelso, J.P. (1980). Gender differences in graffiti: a semiotic perspective. In Kramarae, C. (ed.), The voices and words of women and men. Oxford: Pergamon. 239–52.Google Scholar
Cameron, D. (1983). Feminism and linguistic theory. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Cameron, D. (ed.). (1990). The feminist critique of language. London: Routledge.Google 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 York: Longman. 74–93.Google Scholar
Coates, J. (1988). Gossip revisited: Language in all-female groups. In Coates, J. & Cameron, D. (eds.), Women in their speech communities. New York: Longman. 94–122.Google Scholar
Coates, J., & Cameron, D. (eds.). (1988). Women in their speech communities. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Cole, C.M. (1991). “Oh wise women of the stalls …” Discourse & Society 2: 401–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crosby, F., & Nyquist, L. (1977). The female register: An empirical study of Lakoff's hypothesis. Language in Society 6: 313–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, C.E. (1986). The anonymous collective conversations of women's graffiti: An analysis of supportive advice-giving. In Bremner, S., Caskey, N., & Moonwomon, B. (eds.), Proceedings of the first Berkeley Women and Language Conference. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group. 108–34.Google Scholar
DeFrancisco, V.L. (1990a, October), Integrating gender issues in the intercultural communication classroom: Moving beyond the “variable” approach. Paper presented at the thirteenth annual conference of the Organization for the Study of Communication, Language and Gender, Reno, NV.Google Scholar
DeFrancisco, V.L. (1990b, November). Response to Pamela Fishman: A qualitative study of on-going interactions in heterosexual couples' homes. Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association Convention, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
DeFrancisco, V.L. (1991). The sounds of silence: How men silence women in marital relations. Discourse & Society 2: 413–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubois, B.L., & Crouch, I. (1975). The question of tag questions in women's speech: They don't really use more of then, do they?↓ Language in Society 4: 289–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, P. (1990). Cooperative competition in adolescent “girl talk.” Discourse Processes 13: 91–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelsky, C. (1981). Who's got the floor? Language in Society 10: 383–421.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
Gardner, C.B. (1980). Passing by: Street remarks, address rights, and the urban female. Sociological Inquiry 50: 328–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, M.H. (1988). Cooperation and competition across girls' play activities. In Todd, A. D. & Fisher, S. (eds.), Gender and discourse: The power of talk. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 55–94.Google Scholar
Goodwin, M.H. (1990). He-said-she-said: Talk as social organization among black children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Graddol, D., & Swann, J. (1989). Gender voices. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henley, N. (1977). Body politics: Power, sex, and nonverbal communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Henley, N., & Kramarae, C. (1991). Gender, power, and miscommunication. In Coupland, N., Giles, H., & Wieman, J. (eds.), “Miscommunication” and problematic talk. Newbury, CA: Sage. 18–43.Google Scholar
Jenkins, M.M. (1986). What's so funny? Joking among women. In Bremner, S., Caskey, N., & Moonwomon, B. (eds.), Proceedings of the first Women and Language Conference. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group. 135–51.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1922). Language: Its nature, development and origin. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Johnson, F.L. (1983). Political and pedagogical implications of attitudes toward women's language. Communication Quarterly 31: 133–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, F.L., & Aries, E.J. (1983a). Conversational patterns among same-sex pairs of late-adolescent close friends. The Journal of Genetic Psychology 142: 225–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, F.L., & Aries, E.J. (1983b). The talk of women friends. Women's Studies International Forum 6: 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, D. (1980). Gossip: Notes on women's oral culture. In Kramarae, C. (ed.), The voices and words of women and men. Oxford: Pergamon. 193–98.Google Scholar
Kachru, B.B. (1980). “Socially realistic linguistics”: The Firthian tradition. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 10(1): 85–111.Google Scholar
Kessler, S., & McKenna, W. (1978). Gender: An ethnomethodological approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Kissling, E.A. (1991). Street harassment: The language of sexual terrorism. Discourse & Society 2: 451–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kollock, P., Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1985). Sex and power in interaction: Conversational privileges and duties. American Sociological Review 50: 34–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramarae, C. (1981). Women and men speaking: Framework for analysis. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Kramarae, C. (1986a). A feminist critique of sociolinguistics. Journal of the Atlantic Provinces Linguistic Association 8: 1–22.Google Scholar
Kramarae, C. (1986b). Linguistic crimes which the law cannot reach, or compliments and other insulting behavior. In Bremner, S., Caskey, N., & Moonwomon, B. (eds.), Proceedings of the first Berkeley Women and Language Conference. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group. 84–95.Google Scholar
Kramarae, C. (1990). Changing the complexion of gender in language research. In Giles, H. & Robinson, W. P. (eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. 345–61.Google Scholar
Kramarae, C., & Jenkins, M.M. (1989). Women take back the talk. In Penfield, J. (ed.), Women and language in transition. Albany: State University of New York Press. 137–58.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and women's place. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Maccoby, E. (1986). Social groupings in childhood: Their relationship to prosocial and antisocial behavior in boys and girls. In Olweus, D., Block, J., & Radke-Yarrow, M. (eds.), Development of antisocial and prosocial behavior. New York: Academic. 263–84.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. New York: Cambridge University Press. 196–216.Google Scholar
Mulac, A., Gibbons, P., & Fujiyama, S. (1990, November). Male/female language differences viewed from an inter-cultural perspective: Gender as culture. Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association Convention, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Nichols, P.C. (1983). Linguistic options and choices for black women in the rural south. In Thorne, B., Kramarae, C., & Henley, N. (eds.), Language, gender and society. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 54–68.Google 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
Rakow, L.F. (1987). Looking to the future: Five questions for gender research. Women's Studies in Communication 10: 79–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saville-Troike, M. (1989). The ethnography of communication. 2nd ed.Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schlegel, A. (1989). Gender issues and cross-cultural research. Behavior Science Research 23: 265–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheldon, A. (1990). Pickle fights: Gendered talk in preschool disputes. Discourse Processes 13: 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shibamoto, J.S. (1985). Japanese women's language. Orlando, FL: Academic.Google Scholar
Showalter, E. (1981). Feminist criticism in the wilderness. Critical Inquiry 8: 189–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spender, D. (1980). Man made language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Spitzack, C., & Carter, K. (1987). Women in communication studies: A typology for revision. Quarterly Journal of Speech 73: 401–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugimoto, N. (1991, March). A feminist “click” in pedagogy: A case in intercultural communication. Paper presented at NCWSA Conference '91, Notre Dame, IN.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1986). That's not what I meant! How conversational style makes or breaks your relations with others. New York: William Morrow.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1990a). Gender differences in conversational coherence: Physical alignment and topical cohesion. In Dorval, B. (ed.), Conversational organization and its development. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 167–206.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1990b). Gender differences in topical coherence: Creating involvement in best friends' talk. Discourse Processes 13: 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D. (1990c). Your just don't understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: William Morrow.Google Scholar
Thorne, B., Kramarae, C., & Henley, N. (1983). Language, gender and society: Opening a second decade of research. In Thorne, B., Kramarae, C., & Henley, N. (eds.), Language, gender and society. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 7–24.Google Scholar
Treichler, P., & Kramarae, C. (1983). Women's talk in the ivory tower. Communication Quarterly 31: 118–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Troemel-Ploetz, S. (1991). Selling the apolitical. Discourse & Society 2: 489–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1975). Sex, convert prestige, and linguistic changes in the urban British English of Norwich. In Thorne, B. & Henley, N. (eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 88–104.Google 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. 103–17.Google Scholar
West, C., & Zimmerman, D.H. (1985). Gender, language, and discourse. In van Dijk, T. A. (ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis: Vol. 4. Orlando, FL: Academic. 103–24.Google Scholar
West, C., & Zimmerman, D.H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society 1: 125–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woods, N. (1988). Talking shop: Sex and status as determinants of floor apportionment in a work setting. In Coates, J. & Cameron, D. (eds.), Women in their speech communities. New York: Longman. 141–57.Google Scholar