Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma
Abstract
This critical review of research on gender and humor describes a theoretically and prag-
matically fruitful framework for studying the intersection of these topics. Gender is conceived
as a system of meanings that inuences access to power, status, and material resources.
Humor is conceived as a mode of discourse and a strategy for social interaction. Within this
theoretical framework, it is argued that women and men use humor in same-gender and
mixed-gender settings as one of the tools of gender construction. Through it and other means,
they constitute themselves as masculine men and feminine women. At the same time, the
unique properties of humor make it a valuable tool of gender deconstruction. In the political
humor of the womens movement, and in the conversational humor of women friends, resis-
tance to dominant social constructions of gender can be voiced.
# 2002 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Humor; Social context; Gender construction; Malefemale dierences; Community of practice;
Feminism
What is the relationship between gender and humor? Asking this question pre-
supposes unambiguous understandings of both concepts. However, 30 years of
research and theory, originating in the resurgent feminist movement of the 1970s,
have thoroughly revised social scientists understanding of gender. As the meaning
of gender has changed, its relationship to language and communicationincluding
humorhas also changed. Thus, gender studies have contributed to an expansion of
the concept of humor. With both humor and gender as contested categories, to
0378-2166/03/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S0378-2166(02)00183-2
1414 M. Crawford / Journal of Pragmatics 35 (2003) 14131430
undertake a review of the literature is to dance in a mine eld. I initiate this dance,
because I believe that the intersections of gender and humor are theoretically and
pragmatically vital.
In this article, I begin with a brief history of gender and language research,
focusing on the search for sex dierences in language use. Next, I describe approa-
ches to conceptualizing gender and humor that are theoretically and pragmatically
fruitful. Gender is conceived as a system of meanings that inuences access to
power, status, and material resources. Humor is conceived as a mode of discourse
and a strategy for social interaction. With this theoretical framework in place, I
discuss how individuals use humor in gendered ways, thereby performing gender
and reproducing the gender system. Finally, I discuss the deconstruction of gender
through humor in the conversational humor of women friends and the political
humor of the womens movement.
The study of gender and language has always been an interdisciplinary eld, with
theory and research coming from communication, linguistics, anthropology, socio-
linguistics, history, literary studies, psychology, and philosophy. The feminist
movement that developed in the late 1960s in the US and Europe gave rise to a new
interest in the area within all these disciplines. By the mid-1970s, the already-large
research literature had been catalogued in a hundred-page bibliography Henley and
Thorne, 1975). The rate of increase in new books and articles was rapid (Thorne and
Henley, 1975; Thorne et al., 1983; Stannard, 1977; Spender, 1980; Lako, 1975) and has
scarcely abated since (for recent review essays, see Cameron, 1998, and Crawford, 2001).
One of the rst questions that prompted research on gender and languageDo
women and men use language dierently?would seem to be the simplest, and the
easiest to answer. Researchers could simply compare men and womens talk to nd
out how they dier (and how they are similar) (Canary and Dindia, 1998). People
certainly believe that women and men talk (and think) dierentlyconsider the
immense popularity of advice books that tell women how to interpret the talk and
behavior of men (e.g. Why cant men open up; Naifeh and Smith, 1984), how to
improve their own ways of talking (The new assertive woman; Bloom et al., 1975),
and how to communicate across the gender gap (You just dont understand; Tan-
nen, 1990). The apotheosis of this genre arguably is Men are from Mars, women are
from Venus (Gray, 1992), which has been characterized as a tower of psycho-
babble (Gleick, 1997). However, despite continued popular interest and a very
large number of research studies, there have been few denitive answers on gender
dierences in speech style (Thorne et al., 1983).
Many inuential feminist scholars have suggested that this area of research should
no longer be given priority (cf. Thorne and Henley, 1975; Thorne et al., 1983). Their
M. Crawford / Journal of Pragmatics 35 (2003) 14131430 1415
doubts are related to the broader question of whether social scientists should study
gender-related dierences at all (Kitzinger, 1994). Some researchers maintain that
scientic data on gender-related dierences and similarities can dispel myths and
stereotypes about women (Halpern, 1994; Hyde, 1994; Canary and Dindia, 1998)
and oer corrections to both feminist and antifeminist dogma (Eagly, 1994). Others
maintain that focusing on dierences is a mistake (Hare-Mustin and Marecek, 1994;
Crawford, 1989a; Crawford and Marecek, 1989; Unger, 1989, 1992).
The vexing issue of sex dierences has been and remains theoretically important.
In earlier work, I discussed some limitations of a focus on dierence including the
following (Crawford, 1995):
when a cognitive schema for gender has been internalized, enacting masculinity or
femininity seems natural.
The level at which one chooses to study gender inuences what phenomena will be
conceived as interesting and important; indeed, it determines what constitutes data.
For those concerned with language and discourse, the interactional level is the most
interesting. However, because the three levels form a coherent system of meaning, it
is well to keep sight of all even while focusing on one.
The social constructionist position moves even further away from the essentialistic
sex dierences approach, which conceptualizes gender as something women and
men have or are, as a property or as an attribute (Bohan, 1993). For social con-
structionists, gender is not an attribute of individuals at all, but a way of making
sense of transactions. Gender is conceptualized as a verb, not a noun. The term
doing gender (West and Zimmerman, 1987) reects the social constructionist view
that gender is a salient social and cognitive category through which information is
ltered, selectively processed, and dierentially acted upon to produce self-fullling
prophecies about women and men.
How do these approaches apply to language? Both view talk as a set of strategies
for negotiating the social landscape; social constructionists in particular study talk
as an action-oriented medium in its own right, arguing that the reality constructed
through language forms the basis of social organization (Crawford, 1995; Potter and
Wetherell, 1987). According to West et al. (1997),
Indeed, language and speech style are important components of doing gender.
For example, Kessler and McKennas (1978) interviews of transsexuals1 showed the
importance of speech stylevocabulary, intonation, and other pragmatic aspects
in passing as a gender inconsistent with ones biological sex. And Hall and
Bucholtz (1995) note that transgendered people now consult the ubiquitous self-help
and popular psychology books that describe dierences in mens and womens talk
in order to perfect their passing.
For another case of linguistic gender performativity, consider a site where
womens language is overtly manipulated: the 900-number fantasy lines (Hall, 1995).
1
In 1978, when Kessler and McKenna wrote, the term transsexual was standard usage to refer to
people whose psychological gender identity was incongruent with their biological sex assignment, and who
attempted to change the latter through hormonal treatment, surgery, or behavioral passing. A roughly
equivalent term in contemporary usage is transgendered person. However, because the category has
assumed theoretical importance in gender studies, and because transgender and intersex movements are
becoming more visible politically, terminology has become more contested. For a discussion of the impact
of Kessler and McKennas work, and the theoretical implications of transgender phenomena, see Craw-
ford (2000a).
1418 M. Crawford / Journal of Pragmatics 35 (2003) 14131430
These services allow telephone callers (usually male) to engage in a verbal sexual
encounter with a woman who is paid to do so. The sex worker never meets her cli-
ent, and they know nothing about each other.
Since the telephone as a medium does not allow for visual stimulation, the fantasy
must be created in words alone. To create the illusion of intimacy, the women draw
upon the discourse of male pornography. Their training manuals for the job tell
them to create stereotypical characters such as bimbo, nymphomaniac, mistress,
slave, lesbian, and virgin. They are also instructed to be bubbly, sexy, interesting,
and interested (Hall, 1995, pp. 190191).
In interviews with phone sex workers, Hall (1995) found that they were very aware
of what kind of womens language is marketable. They consciously created sexy
talk by using feminine or owery words, inviting and supportive comments, and
a dynamic intonation pattern (breathy, excited, varied in pitch, lilting). These are
features often characterized as submissive or powerless (Lako, 1975). However, the
women on the fantasy lines did not feel powerless; they generally felt quite superior
to their male callers, whom they characterized as unintelligent and socially inept.
And one of the most eective of the phone sex workers was a biological male who
impersonated a femaleclearly, an expert in performing linguistic femininity.
This study illustrates the social constructionist position that meaning is co-con-
structed and contextual. Within the context of the fantasy lines, sex workers
manipulate feminine talk in a way that brings them some power as individuals
(though it does not enhance the status or power of women collectively). They engage
in a limited sort of creativity as they generate characters and scripts, they earn a
great deal of money and they can play at sex anonymously with no fear of violence,
sexually transmitted diseases, or social sanction. To the male callers, the fantasy
woman constructed entirely through language is presumably satisfying.
The construction of the feminine woman on the fantasy lines is an unusual case,
because it is overt, a form of game-playing. Usually, femininity is constructed out-
side of conscious awareness, as a natural part of social interaction. Consider the
talk of adolescent girls. Girls do many dierent things in talk. One of their most
important accomplishments is to create and sustain friendships by sharing experi-
ences and feelings in supportive ways. They also co-construct their femininity: they
enact and perform what it is to be a real girl in their particular community and cul-
ture. For example, Coates (1996) recorded a conversation among four 16-year-old
British girls who were talking about one of their group as she tried on another girls
makeup. In complimenting her (Doesnt she look really nice?, She does look
nice, You should wear make-up more often), they are being supportive friends.
At the same time, however, they are co-constructing a social reality where looking
good is very important and working on ones appearance is expected. Cameron has
nicely summarized the constructionist view of gender performativity:
If I talk like a woman this is not just the inevitable outcome of the fact that I
am a woman; it is one way I have of becoming a woman, producing myself as
one. There is no such thing as being a woman outside the various practices
that dene womanhood for my culturepractices ranging from the sort of
M. Crawford / Journal of Pragmatics 35 (2003) 14131430 1419
work I do to my sexual preferences to the clothes I wear to the way I use lan-
guage (1996, p. 46).
Other research on the talk of young women shows discursive practices that con-
struct femininity in less predictable ways. A study of the conversation of several
overlapping groups of Australian university students, some heterosexual and some
lesbian, showed that their talk was often subversive. These women thought of
themselves as feminists and antipatriarchal women, and their friendships crossed
gay/straight boundaries. Their conversation showed that their social construction of
themselves as feminists subverted the larger societal discourse about gender and
sexuality. For example, the following talk took place among three friends upon
hearing that the mother of another friend was planning to marry a man she had
been having an aair with for only a month:
oh my god what?
oh my god that is sick
that is awful
that is terrible
that is horrible
that is foul
that is really foul
I just thought oh god how shit
its awful horrible horrible
oh yuk thats gross
They go on to talk about marriage in negative terms (the M-word) and question
why any woman in her right mind would do such a thing:
I thought at least she could have come to her senses after a few weeks. Fling,
aair, relationship, these things I can deal with, marriage I cant.
Their talk is more than just a comment on one particular situation; what it
accomplishes is an overturning of the hegemonic discourse that represents marriage
as the be-all-and-end-all of womens lives (Coates and Jordan, 1997, pp. 217218).
In the social construction of gender, resistance as well as acquiescence to gender
asymmetries can be examined through research on language.
socially agreed upon. In speaking within this mode of discourse, people try to avoid
self-contradiction, to resolve disagreements of interpretation, and to eliminate
ambiguity and paradoxes of meaning. Of course, dierences in the interpretation of
reality are common, but a goal of talk in the serious mode is to minimize them in the
service of comprehension and smooth social functioning.
In contrast, Mulkay argues, the humor mode has dierent interpretive procedures.
Humor is not mere nonsense. Rather, it is a particular form of controlled, rule-bound
nonsense. Many theories of humor have incorporated the notion that humorous
eects depend on the juxtaposition of two or more incongruous ways of viewing an
aspect of reality. Mulkay draws on these theories to develop his own arguments that
humor is a distinct discursive mode dened by its acceptance of ambiguity, paradox,
multiple interpretations of reality, and partially resolved incongruity. Mulkay but-
tresses his contention that the humor and serious modes are linguistically distin-
guishable by showing that changes from one to the other mode are marked. Entry
into and linguistic performance in the humor mode are co-constructed by con-
versational participants. Speakers signal their intent as they attempt a shift to the
humor mode, and hearers may either cooperate or deny recognition of the attemp-
ted shift in discourse mode with a variety of linguistic and paralinguistic strategies
(Hay, 1999; Mulkay, 1988).
Once speakers agree that they are engaging in humorous interaction, conver-
sational postulates can be violated without interfering with communication
(Attardo, 1993). Socially unspeakable topics can more readily enter the discourse,
because the ambiguity of the humor mode allows them to be talked about in dis-
guised and deniable form. Hospital humor, for example, is a site for venting fears of
death and disease. For similar reasons, power relations can be inverted in the humor
mode without lasting consequences. Joking about those in power, whether politi-
cians, religious leaders, or the rich and famous, vents feelings, questions the justice
of the hierarchy, and temporarily appropriates the power of ridicule, but usually
does not change the power hierarchy.
How do the reconceptualizations of gender and humor outlined here point to new
research strategies? Social constructionist and social interactionist perspectives on
gender encourage us not to focus on decontextualized sex dierences, but instead to
ask how masculinity and femininity are constructedand resistedthrough talk.
Conceptualizing humor as a mode of discourse encourages research on interactional
humor. The earlier emphases on individual dierences in humor appreciation and
on sense of humor as a personality trait are giving way to a focus on humor that
occurs spontaneously in social interaction (Crawford, 1989b). The humorous dis-
course itself, rather than the individuals who produce it, becomes the object of
study.
Conceiving humor as a discourse mode leads to the recognition that one can do
virtually anything with itand also that some functions are more likely than others.
What can be accomplished with humor depends greatly on its immediate social
context (Lampert and Ervin-Tripp, 1998). Indeed, the full meaning of any text can only
be derived contextually (Attardo, 1993). Therefore, no functional taxonomy of humor
can be complete. For purposes of discursive analysis, the most useful taxonomies are
M. Crawford / Journal of Pragmatics 35 (2003) 14131430 1421
We probably laugh a lot and nd things that are in common. . .so that you
wouldyou would pick up on one thing and then the person reinforced that by
saying well the same thing happened to them, or it happened in a dierent way,
then youd have a laugh because its a shared thing (Coates, 1996, p. 56).
1422 M. Crawford / Journal of Pragmatics 35 (2003) 14131430
serve somewhat dierent functions for women and men. While the collaborative,
self-revealing style of storytelling is not unique to women, it may serve their inter-
ests better than more individualistic styles used when they are in all-woman groups.
(For a dierent view on women and humor directed at the self, see also Kottho,
2000.)
seemed to be a way of displaying their own heterosexual masculinity. Like the men
in Mulkays study, who distinguished themselves from mere women by objectifying
and sexualizing them, these men distinguished themselves from unmasculine men
by denigrating them as artsy fartsy fags and homos. Cameron notes that this
kind of discursive strategy is not only about masculinity, it is a sustained perfor-
mance of masculinity (1997, p. 590, emphasis in original).
The studies reviewed in this section illustrate the creation and maintenance of
gender distinctions within local communities of practice (Eckert and McConnell-
Ginet, 1992). The meaning of gender within communities as diverse as British or North
American college students, British pub regulars, and American mothers support
groups certainly diers. Although the authors of the studies may not have employed
the concept of community of practice, their work shows discursive constructions of
masculinity and femininity within particular sets of social arrangements, and should
not be employed as evidence of universal or even broadly cultural dierences.
legitimated) system of meanings and social reality over another; the girls meaning is
positioned as less valid. The structures of dominance involve not only the power to
put girls in institutions for their own good, but to control the form, content, and
meaning of their talk.
Nevertheless, the girls in this study were resistant to control. A common form of
linguistic resistance was to mimic the therapists professional language. For example,
after one girl told a personal story in group therapy, another might say, How does
that make you feel? Ironic (non-serious mode) appropriation of therapeutic dis-
course is an eective strategy in this case. The comment permits at least two inter-
pretations: either the girl is really concerned or she is reminding the other girls of the
therapists insincere and formulaic questions. In this case, the ambiguity (hence
deniability) of the humor mode protects the speaker from negative consequences.
Womens resistance to social control is also expressed in talk about sexuality, a
frequent source of humor (Crawford, 1995, 2000b.) Green (1977) described the
humor of a speech community of US southern white women. Most of her examples
were collected at family gatherings, where men congregated outdoors while women
and children were in the kitchen. Many of the most outspoken of the bawdy
humorists were old women. Like many traditional cultures, the US South allows
increasing license to old women, and Green notes that the women she observed took
full advantage in presenting themselves as wicked:
Once, when my grandmother stepped out of the bathtub, and my sister com-
mented that the hair on her privates was getting rather sparse, Granny
retorted that grass dont grow on a racetrack (p. 31).
The womens humor served at least three functions. First, it provided respect and
status for the storyteller. Second, it was educational. Green suggests that the sexual
information children gleaned from stories of lustful young married couples, cynical
prostitutes, rowdy preachers, impotent drunks, and wicked old ladies was at least as
accurate as a parental sex ed lecture, and much more fun. Perhaps most important,
womens bawdy humor was subversive of the cultural rules controlling womens sexu-
ality. The very telling dees the rules. . .Women are not supposed to know or repeat
such stu. But they do and when they do, they speak ill of all that is sacredmen, the
church, marriage, home, family, parents (p. 33). Green speculates that the women in
this speech community used humor to vent their anger at men, oer alternative realities
to their female audience, and, by including children in the circle of listeners, perform
tiny act[s] of revenge on the men who had power over their lives (p. 33).
If, as I have argued, womens humor both conrms conventional femininity and
serves as a site of resistance to it, one might expect that the social and political
changes wrought by the feminist movement would be reected in humor practices.
In the past, before feminism provided a context for a collective identity as women,
research showed that both men and women reported enjoying humor directed at
women. Lampert and Ervin-Tripp (1998) reviewed over 40 studies conducted
between 1970 and 1996 seeking evidence for a decline in the acceptance of anti-
female humor and a rise of pro-feminist or resistant humor. They concluded that
1426 M. Crawford / Journal of Pragmatics 35 (2003) 14131430
Just as feminist humor subverts the inexible gender roles of the dominant cul-
ture, it mocks inexibility among feminists. In this example from a diary entry about
lesbian sexuality, a feminist jokes about how the notion of political correctness can
be coercive for women, and asserts her own autonomy, placing limits on the inu-
ence she will allow to feminist doctrine in her own life:
Politically correct sex lasts at least three hours, since everyone knows were
process-oriented and not goal-oriented. If we do have orgasms, those orgasms
must be simultaneous. And we must lie side by side. Now I know that some
people think that orgasms are patriarchal. But Ive given up many things for
feminism, and this isnt going to be one of them (White, 1988, p. 83).
The most important role for humor in the creation of a feminist culture may be
the articulation of common meanings (White, 1988). By creating and arming their
own meanings, feminists create a sense of community, allowing themselves to self-
identify as feminists and enact their feminism in everyday interaction. Today, with
many young women and some young men identifying as third-wave feminists
(Liss et al., 2000), there are opportunities for more research on the co-construction
of feminist identity through language in pro-feminist communities of practice.
5. Conclusions
Women and men use humor in same-gender and mixed-gender settings as one of
the tools of gender construction. Through it and other means, they constitute them-
selves as masculine men and feminine women. At the same time, the unique properties
of humor make it a valuable tool of gender deconstruction. As women have developed
a group identity around feminist issues, a distinctive form of humor has emerged. In
the public political humor of the womens movement, and in the conversational
humor of women friends, resistance to hegemonic views of gender can be voiced.
Acknowledgements
Portions of this chapter were adapted from Crawford (1995, 2000b) and Crawford
and Unger (2000). Thanks are due to two anonymous reviewers whose suggestions
for revision were very helpful.
References
Attardo, Salvatore, 1993. Violation of conversational maxims and cooperation: the case of jokes. Journal
of Pragmatics 19, 537558.
Barreca, Regina, 1975. They Used to Call Me Snow White. . .But I Drifted. Viking, New York.
Bloom, V., Coburn, K., Perlman, J., 1975. The New Assertive Woman. Delacorte, New York.
Bohan, Janis, 1993. Regarding gender: essentialism, constructionism and feminist psychology. Psychology
of Women Quarterly 17, 522.
1428 M. Crawford / Journal of Pragmatics 35 (2003) 14131430
Cameron, Deborah, 1996. The language-gender interface: challenging co-optation. In: Bergvall, V.L.,
Bing, J.M., Freed, A.F. (Eds.), Rethinking Language and Gender Research: Theory and Practice.
Addison Wesley Longman, New York, pp. 3153.
Cameron, Deborah, 1997. Performing gender identity: young mens talk and the construction of hetero-
sexual masculinity. In: Johnson, S., Meinhof, U.H. (Eds.), Language and Masculinity. Blackwell,
Oxford, pp. 4764.
Cameron, Deborah, 1998. Gender, language, and discourse: a review essay. Signs 23, 945973.
Canary, Daniel J., Dindia, Kathryn. (Eds.), 1998. Sex Dierences and Similarities in Communication.
Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Coates, Jennifer, 1996. Women Talk. Blackwell, Oxford.
Coates, Jennifer, Cameron, Deborah (Eds.), 1988. Women in their Speech Communities: New Perspec-
tives on Language and Sex. Longman, London.
Coates, Jennifer, Jordan, Mary E., 1997. Que(e)rying friendship: Discourses of resistance and the con-
struction of gendered subjectivity. In: Livia, A., Hall, K. (Eds.), Queerly Phrased: Language, Gender,
and Sexuality. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 214232.
Crawford, Mary, 1989. Agreeing to dier: feminist epistemologies and womens ways of knowing. In:
Crawford, M., Gentry, M. (Eds.), Gender and Thought. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 128145.
Crawford, Mary, 1989. Humor in conversational contexts: beyond biases in the study of gender and
humor. In: Unger, R.K. (Ed.), Representations: Social Constructions of Gender. Baywood, Amityville,
NY, pp. 155166.
Crawford, Mary, 1995. Talking Dierence: On Gender and Language. Sage, London.
Crawford, Mary, 2000. Making sex and doing gender (Editors introduction to special feature, A reap-
praisal of gender: an ethnomethodological approach). Feminism and Psychology 10, 710.
Crawford, Mary, 2000. Only joking: humor and sexuality. In: Travis, C.B., White, J.W. (Eds.), Sexuality,
Society and Feminism. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 213236.
Crawford, Mary, Gressley, Diane, 1991. Creativity, caring, and context: womens and mens accounts of
humor preferences and practices. Psychology of Women Quarterly 15, 217232.
Crawford, Mary, Marecek, Jeanne, 1989. Psychology reconstructs the female. Psychology of Women
Quarterly 13, 147166.
Crawford, Mary, Unger, Rhoda, 2000. Women and gender: a feminist psychology, (third ed.). McGraw-
Hill, New York.
Crawford, Mary, 2001. Gender and language. In: Unger, R. (Ed.), Handbook of Gender. Wiley, New
York, pp. 2282440.
Deaux, Kay, LaFrance, Marianne, 1998. Gender. In: Gilbert, D.T., Fiske, S.T. (Eds.), Handbook of
Social Psychology. McGraw-Hill, Boston, pp. 788827.
Eagly, Alice, 1994. On comparing women and men. Feminism and Psychology 4, 513522.
Fine, Michelle, 1985. Reections on a feminist psychology of women: paradoxes and prospects. Psychol-
ogy of Women Quarterly 9, 167183.
Garnkel, Harvey, 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Clis, NJ.
Gervasio, Amy H., 1987. Assertiveness techniques as speech acts. Clinical Psychology Review 7, 105119.
Gervasio, Amy H., Crawford, Mary, 1989. Social evaluations of assertiveness: a critique and speech act
reformulation. Psychology of Women Quarterly 13, 125.
Gleick, E., 1997. Tower of psychobabble: self-help author John Grays empire. Time 149, 6871.
Gray, John, 1992. Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. Harper Collins, New York, NY.
Green, Rayna, 1977. Magnolias grow in dirt: the bawdy lore of Southern women. Southern Exposure 4, 2933.
Hall, Kira, 1995. Lip service on the fantasy lines. In: Hall, K., Bucholtz, M. (Eds.), Gender Articulated:
Language and the Socially Constructed Self. Routledge, New York, pp. 183216.
Hall, Kira, Bucholtz, Mary (Eds.), 1995. Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self.
Routledge, New York.
Halpern, Diane, 1994. Stereotypes, science, censorship, and the study of sex dierences. Feminism and
Psychology 4, 523530.
Hare-Mustin, Rachel, Marecek, Jeanne, 1994. Asking the right questions: feminist psychology and sex
dierences. Feminism and Psychology 4, 531537.
M. Crawford / Journal of Pragmatics 35 (2003) 14131430 1429
Hay, Jennifer, 1999. Functions of humor in the conversations of men and women. Journal of Pragmatics
32, 134.
Hay, Jennifer, 2001. The pragmatics of humor support. Humor: The International Journal of Humor
Research 14, 5582.
Henley, Nancy, 1995. Ethnicity and gender issues in language. In: Landrine, H. (Ed.), Bringing cultural
diversity to feminist psychology. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Henley, Nancy, Thorne, Barrie, 1975. She Said, He Said: An Annotated Bibliography of Sex Dierences
in Language, Speech and Non-verbal Communication. KNOW, Pittsburgh.
Hollander, Nicole, 1994. T-shirt advertisement. Funny Times 9, 22.
Hollway, Wendy, 1994. Beyond sex dierences: a project for feminist psychology. Feminism and Psy-
chology 4, 538546.
Houghton, Cathryn, 1995. Managing the body of labor: the treatment of reproduction and sexuality in a
therapeutic institution. In: Hall, K., Bucholtz, M. (Eds.), Gender Articulated: Language and the
Socially Constructed Self. Routledge, New York, pp. 121142.
Hyde, Janet, 1994. Should psychologists study gender dierences? Yes, with some guidelines. Feminism
and Psychology 4, 507512.
Jenkins, Mercilee, 1985. Whats so funny? Joking among women. In: Bremner, S., Caskey, N., Moon-
womon, B. (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Berkeley Women and Language Conference. Berkeley
Women and Language Group, Berkeley, CA.
Kalcik, Susan, 1975. . . .like Anns gynecologist or the time I was almost raped Personal narratives in
womens rap groups. Journal of American Folklore 88, 311.
Kambouropoulou, P., 1930. Individual dierences in the sense of humor and their relation to tempera-
mental dierences. Archives of Psychology 19, 183.
Kessler, Suzanne, McKenna, Wendy, 1978. Gender: An Ethnomethodological Approach. Wiley, New
York.
Kimmel, Ellen, Crawford, Mary, 2000. Innovations in Feminist Psychological Research. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Kitzinger, Celia, 1991. Feminism, psychology, and the paradox of power. Feminism and Psychology 1,
111129.
Kitzinger, Celia, 1994. Should psychologists study sex dierences? Feminism and Psychology 4, 501546.
Kottho, Helga, 2000. Gender and joking: On the complexities of womens image politics in humorous
narratives. Journal of Pragmatics 32, 5580.
Lako, Robin, 1975. Language and Womans Place. Harper and Row, New York.
Lampert, Martin, Ervin-Tripp, Susan, 1998. Exploring paradigms: the study of gender and sense of
humor near the end of the 20th century. In: Willibald, Ruch. (Ed.), The Sense of Humor. Mouton de
Gruyter, New York, pp. 231270.
Liss, Miriam, Crawford Mary, Walker Angela, 2000. Development and validation of the Gender Col-
lectivity Scale. Presented at the Eleventh Annual Conference on Women and Gender, University of
Connecticut.
Maltz, Daniel N., Borker, Ruth A., 1982. A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In:
Gumperz, J. (Ed.), Language and social identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Mulkay, Michael, 1988. On Humor. Basil Blackwell, New York.
Naifeh, J., Smith, G.W., 1984. Why Cant Men Open Up?. Warner, New York.
Nichols, Patricia C., 1980. Women in their speech communities. In: McConnell-Ginet, S., Borker, R.,
Furman, N. (Eds.), Women and Language in Literature and Society. Praeger, New York, pp. 140149.
Nichols, Patricia 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. Newbury House, Rowley, MA,
pp. 5468.
OBarr, William, Atkins, Bowman, 1980. Womens language or powerless language? In: McConnell-
Ginet, S., Borker, R., Furman, N. (Eds.), Women and Language in Literature and Society. Praeger,
New York, pp. 93110.
Potter, Jonathan, Wetherell, Margaret, 1987. Discourse and Social Psychology. Sage, London.
Reinharz, Shulamith, 1992. Feminist Methods in Social Research. Oxford University Press, New York.
1430 M. Crawford / Journal of Pragmatics 35 (2003) 14131430
Spender, Dale, 1980. Man Made Language. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Stannard, Una, 1977. Mrs. Man. Germainbooks, San Francisco.
Steinem, Gloria, 1983. Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions. New American Library, New York.
Tannen, Deborah, 1990. You Just Dont Understand. Ballantine, New York.
Thorne, Barrie, Henley, Nancy (Eds.), 1975. Language and Sex: Dierences and Dominance. Newbury
House, Rowley, MA.
Thorne, Barrie, Kramarae, Cheris, Henley, Nancy. (Eds.), 1983. Language, Gender and Society. Newbury
House, Rowley, MA.
Todd, Alexandra, Fisher, Sue (Eds.), 1988. Gender and Discourse: The Power of Talk. Ablex, Norwood,
NJ.
Unger, Rhoda, 1989. Explorations in feminist ideology: surprising consistencies and unexamined conicts.
In: Unger, R. (Ed.), Representations: Social Constructions of Gender. Baywood, New York, pp. 203
211.
Unger, Rhoda, 1992. Will the real sex dierence please stand up? Feminism and Psychology 2, 231238.
Van Gien, Katherine, Maher, Kathleen, 1995. Memorable humorous incidents: gender, themes and set-
ting eects. Humor: The International Journal of Humor Research 8, 3950.
West, Candace, Zimmerman, Donald H, 1987. Doing gender. Gender and Society 1, 125151.
West, Candace, Lazar, Michelle, Kramarae, Cheris, 1997. Gender in discourse. In: Van Dijk, T.A. (Ed.),
Discourse as Social Interaction. Sage, London, pp. 119143.
Wetherell, Margaret, Edley, Nigel, 1999. Negotiating hegemonic masculinity: imaginary positions and
psycho-discursive practices. Feminism and Psychology 9, 335356.
White, Cindy, 1988. Liberating laughter: an inquiry into the nature, content, and functions of feminist
humor. In: Bate, B., Taylor, A. (Eds.), Women Communicating: Studies of Womens Talk. Ablex,
Norwood, NJ.
Wilkinson, Sue, Kitzinger, Celia (Eds.), 1995. Feminism and Discourse: Psychological Perspectives. Sage,
London.
Mary Crawford is Professor of Psychology at the University of Connecticut. She is a consulting editor for
Psychology of Women Quarterly, Feminism and Psychology, and Sex Roles, and a Fellow of both the
American Psychological Association and the American Psychological Society. Mary Crawford has spoken
and written about womens issues for audiences as diverse as the British Psychological Society, the
Swedish Research Council, Ms. Magazine and the Oprah Winfrey Show. Books she has authored or edi-
ted include Gender and Thought: Psychological Perspectives (1989); Talking Dierence: On Gender and
Language (1995); Gender Dierences in Human Cognition (1997); Coming Into Her Own: Educational
Success in Girls and Women (1999); Innovative Methods for Feminist Psychological Research (1999); and a
widely used text and reader, Women and Gender: A Feminist Psychology (third ed., 2000) and In Our Own
Words (second ed., 2001).