ithe RTT)Co mad ad jaterial Features Tannen’s newest essay: LTS a eee ee Deborah Tannen’s You Just Don't Understand spent nearly four years on the New York Ue eRe eS ese weed CO CL RUN ed) TS ee eee eR ea ee SS ee he ee} Dt ee Ces oR UNO my Pe Sa Se eam a Comal relationships—including relationships between women and men Now. in Gender and Discourse, Tannen has gathered together her six illuminating Pet RCT eT ean eee CLT eae una nn SR SCOR eM cs ec Pees OME Oe eee Ue eC as CUS UOMO ecco mes TC wide-ranging essays provide a backdrop to her best-selling books, covering everything from conversational strategies and the balance of power achieved by each PORE ee RL ce I Readers interested in the crucial yet often unnoticed role that language and gender Ce ee eee Loa SUR SU SO La SC RCSL MmS ae UCL CT Sac eae remit “Tannen...has eye-opening and entertaining things to say about the way in which Se UL Le ee Rea into trouble when interpreting the linguistic moves of others... Her approach to conversational catastrophes is simple yet powerful.” The New York Times Book Review Se UL Re me em Ce er rt hoe BE ee ee Conversation, Talking Vowes: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational a ee ee eo Your Relations With Others. Conversational Stvle> Analyzing Talk Among Friends, PON ee Cor ee ee eo ee Se a me a 900ALSO BY DEBORAH TANNEN Framing in Discuz (eed, 193) Gender end Conversational Interaction (eed, 1993) You jut Don't Undertands Wanner and Men in Conversation (1990) Telling Ves: Rption, Dilogu and Inagery in Comesational Decwre (1989) Linge in Cant: Connecting Obtervation aad Undertanting (edie 1988) ‘That's Not What I Mean! How Canverationel Spe Moka or Breaks ' ‘Your Relais wih Other (1986) Languages cad Linguistics Th Icurchpenderceof Thao, Dats cad Applicaton (woedted with James E. Alats, 1986) Parpectves on Sees (ceded with Muss Savile-Troike, 185) 4 Convarttonel Sil: dnoyting Tale mong Friends (1984) f Coherence in Sabon and Wrisen Discauee (eed 1984) i Lilia Neos (193) 4 Spaten and Writun Language: Explaring Oral nd Litacy 3 (edited, 1982) 4 Analying Dicoures Tet and Talk (edied, 1982)G ender aad Discourse Deborah Tannen ae Hew York Oxford[eee et | ete] [amt FO ETE ny ree engrera fer ie Se Copyigs © 1936 by DeborinTanns. ‘Copyright© 196 For Chapter Shy Deborah Tonen Fi plied 0 nid ry Pr Taian Aun Yate fae Potted Ole Urey Pa pet I ed add Oe Uy Pe ogi mar pra hago n bre snd eel unr ene ny ec mk yg arg ei her pepe of Oe sey ea tence eather mane "Gad spcenpe nso gal ang up i ate me Coven le Faison ‘hacia il i 989 pn Ses aaa ete doe eri my to ne pl ol a Si fe Many pa Be nn by a Bk gia ‘tla pag © iy A Be Repay orien Pa ‘Set dif aka Ais ney Ha en ih © Ha rc ‘Salih on of Cnc hase Fre pa vis © ny Rly olny at asl aby ay i © 90 Lr a Reply : ‘poi ahad RaneTo Barbara McGrael and in memory of Larry McGraelAcknowledgments | prepared this book for publication while a fellow at che Center for ‘Advanced Study inthe Behavioral Sciences in Stanford, California. 1 shall always be grateful to have een apart ofthe Center fora yesr. am also grateful for financil support provided through CASBS by the National Science Foundation SES-9022192.Introduction, 3 |, Methodological Comtex, 5 ‘The Role of Dominance in a Cultural Diference Framework, 7 Beyond the Nature/Nurture Dichotomy, 12 Noten It References, 15 1, The Relativity of Linguistic Strategies: Rethinking Power and Solidarity in Gender and Dominance, 19 Invroduetion, 20 Overview of the Chapter, 21 ‘Theoretical Background, 22 Power and Solidarity, 22 ‘The Ambiguity of LingustleStacgies, 23 ‘The Polysemy of Power and Solidarity, 4 Stile Difference, 28 ‘The Relativity of Linguistic Seategies, 31 Indiesners, 32 Irmerruption, 34Contents Sleace Versus Voluliy, 36 “Tope Patsing, 3° ‘Adversvenens Conf and Verbal Aggrestion, 4 Concsion, 46 Noes, 47 . References, 49 2, Interpreting Interruption in Conversation, 53 Males lnerrupe Females: The Research, 55 Imerruption as Dominance, 56 Methodological Objection, 57 Socolinguste Objection, 59 Cultural Variation, 68 Ethical Objection: Stereoryping and Conversational Seyte, 71 Gender, Edinicry, and Conversational Siyl, 72 Conclusion, 74 Afeeword, 74 Notes, 77 References, 79 3. Gender Differences in Conversational Coherence: Physical Alignment and Topical Cohesion, 85 Iotrodction, 86 Physical Aligamene, 89 ‘Summary: Physical Alignment, 98 ‘Topical Cohesion, 99 ‘Summary: Topical Cohesion, 126 ‘Concusion: The Congrueace of Pesture and Topi 127 Notes, 129 . References, 133,Contents 4. Conversational Strategy and Metastrategy in a Pragmatic Theory: The Example of Scenes from a Marriage (with Robin Lakoff}, 137 Introduaion: A Theory of Communicative Competence, 139 “The Selection of Sener « Marriage, \4l Sarfece Harmony and Underlying Discord: The Framework (of Seana from a Marriage, 142 Pragmatic Relationships, 148 Individual Seyes, 149 Pragmti enty, 161 Pragmatic Synonymy, 162 Pragmatic Homonymy, 165 ‘The Use of Questions, 166 Gonetusion, 171 Noses, 172 References, 172 5. Ethnic Style in Male-Female Conversation, 175 Indirecmess in Discourse, 179 CClerally Relative Patterns of Inerpretation: A Pil Pertems of Interpretation: Qualitative Retuhs, 188 Conclusion, 192 Notes, 193 : References, 194 Suudy, 184 6. The Sex-Class Linked Framing of Talk at Work, 195 Sexlass Linked ve. Sexlinked, 197 Sramis and Connection, 202 ‘Workplace Examples: Balancing Stacus and Connection, 205 Sexedass Linked Paternt at Work, 212Contents Further Bvidenee for Sexes Linkage, 213, Reprise, 218 Notes, 218 References, 220 Indes, 222Gender and DiscourseIntroduction JFESTENNG "a anu of seta on gender hep ing into a maelstrom. What it means to be female or male, ‘what it's like to talk to someone of the other (or the same) gender, sre questions whose answers touch people where they live, and ‘when a nerve is touched, people howl, Yet it is my hope that through the din, scholarly research can be heard, and dialogue can take place among researchers, even those who have entered the zoom of scholarly exchange through different disciplicary doors. (One of the aspects of gender stuies that makes it most reward ing and meaningful is also one that makes i-especally risky: iss interdiscplinary natre. When scholars from diferent fields try to read and comment on each other's research, they find themselves ‘on dangerous ground. Inerdiscipliary dslogue isn itself kind of ‘cross-cultural communication, because researchers bring with them completely different notions of what questions 10 ask and how to go bout answering them. Assumptions that are taken for granted by those in one discipline are often deemed groundless by those in another. For eample, paychologits trained in experimental methods may scorn and discount ethnographic or hermendutic studies because they lack large data bass, random sampling, con- trol groups, and statistical analysis. And anthropelogsts trained in aGender ond Discourse ethnographic methods may scom and discount psychological studies because they are based on data elicited in experimental rather than naturally occurring situations and reduce the complex temure of human behavior to quantifiable and “codable” sbstrac- sons ‘The study of gender and language might seem at fist ro be a narrowly focused field, but itis acwally as interdisciplinary as they come Researchers working inthis aren have he os in wily divergent academic disciplines, including sociology, education, thropelogy, peycholog, epecch communication, Itatue, and ‘women's studies, as well as my own field of linguistics. Though one might expect scholars trained in linguistics—the academic discipline devoted t0 the study of language—to figure prominently in this ‘group linguists are infact the smallest contingent. I suspect this is mostly because the field is very small to start with, but also beeause ‘maigstream contemporary linguistics has been concerned with the formal analysis of language as an abstract system, no language ait is used in everyday life. The situation is forher complicated for researchers whose individ training o elds of specialization span multiple academic disciplines. Incerdiscipinaty dialogue, like all cross-cultural commnica- tion, requires compassion, flesbilty, and patience, xs -well asthe ‘for to understand the context fom which interfocutos emerge. In light of his, 1 approached the task of clleting my academic writ- ings on gender and discourse with 2 sense of caution. The essays {gathered inthis volume were originally wrsten with my academic colleagues in mind, that is, readers in my own (already inter- sisciplinary) field. But] realize that they may now be read not only by colleagues in diferent disciplines but also by a range of readers of You fuse Den’t Understand: Women and Mon in Conversation who ‘want see the detailed analysis and scholarly references that led to the writing ofthat book, as well as the theoretical discussion thet ~vas heyond its scope. So I begin by explaining my scholarly heri- tage and assumptions in order to contextualize the chapters that follow. in the process, ths intreduction also sets forth and explores 7Uneroduetion some of the issues rained by 2 sodolingulstc, anthropologialy ‘oriented approncho gender and language—thewpproach cht char- ‘Acterizes the essays in this volume. METHODOLOGICAL CONTEXT ‘Within the discipline of linguistics, the work I dois referred to 2s “discourse analysis.” This term reflees the aspect of my approach that is most significant for linguists in that it contrasts with the dominant strains in the discipline, Whereas most contemporary Jinguistics takes as the object of study souncls (phonetics and pho- nology), words (lexicon and morphology), or sentences (syntax, that is, the arrangement of words in sentences), discourse analysis focuses on connected language “beyond the sentence,” as linguists often put i. On the other hand, I sometimes identify myself = “socolingust,” partly because I teach In the sorolingusties pro- ig3am within the linguistics department at Geoigetown University, Dut also because my work addresses the intersection of language and social phenomena. Finally, I refer to my approach as anthra- pologiclly oriented because my method involves closely examining individual eases of interaction, in many of which Iwas «participant, and takes into account their cultural context. ‘The theoretical and methodological approach found here de- ives from the work of Robin Lakoff end John Gumperz, who were my teachers at the University of California Berkeley, It was LakofT (ee expecially Lakoff 1975, 1979, 1990) who introduced me tothe concept she calls communicative style (I later began using my own term, “conversational style”) and the notion that misunderscandings can arise in conversation, both cross-cultural and crose-gender, be+ cause of systematic differences in communicative syle. Gummperz (Gee expecially Gumpera 1982s) calls hs typeof analysis “internc- ‘ional sociolinguistcs® to elstinguish ic from the more common type of sociolingvstes that typically examines phonological varis~ tion (ee Labov 1972). From Gumpere learned the methodological approach, which is characterized by: (I) tape-recording naturally rGender and Diseaurse ‘occuring conversations; (2) ideatifying segments in which trouble is evident (3) looking fr culturally patterned differences in sigral- jing meaning that could account forthe trouble; (4) playing the recording, oF Segments oft, back to panipasis inorder ro solicit their spontaneous interpretations and reactions, and also, perhaps Iter, soliciting their responses tothe researcher's interpretations; and (5) playing segrocns ofthe iteration for other members of the cultural groups represented by the speaker in order vo discern patterns of interpretation. ‘The laerwo steps are not an afterthought they provide crieal checks on interpretations, given the hermeneutic (that is, interpre tive) methodological framework. They are also crucial to ensure that the schols's work is grounded inthe experience ofthe speakers ‘whose behavior isthe object of study. 1am remioded bere of Oliver Sacks, the brine neurologist and essayist, who demonstrates that inorder to understand medical condition, physicians aeed to not ‘only examine thir patents butalso listen to them. Whereas modem medicine may provide invaluable insight into chemical and biolog- lea courses of disease, only patients hold the clues to what their diseases ae “rally lke” (Sacks 1987-40) In the same spirit attar tion to how participants experience cdaversations under analysis provides invaluable sight into the workings of interaction that are ‘otherwise unavailable tothe researcher, Furthermore, and eniially, it alo provides an ethical and hursanistic foundation for the re~ search, making us accountable to those we study. ‘The chapters gathered here constitute the totality of my aca- demi weiings on gender and language price to and since the pub- lication of You Just Don’ Underiand, my eleventh book. My pre~ viows books and articles were on othe topics—mostly analyzing conversation (Tannen 1984), comparing speaking and writing ‘Cannen 19822, 19825, 1984), and exploring the reatioaship be- ‘tween conversational and literary discourse (Tannen 1989)? My ‘work on gender related difereaces in conversational style is nati- ral developinent of my eadlier research and writing on subcultural differences in conversational style. Thus, my approach to genderInuraduction and language follows in the tradition of Gumper: and of Mal and Botker (1982), who were similarly influenced by Gumpere. Accord ing to ths view, some frustrations in conversations berween Women and men can be understood by reference to systematic difeences in hhow women and men tend to signal meaning in convertion. This is quite different from the impetus behind some other wark on gender and language, expecially the work thar grows out of polit cal agenda The roots of my approach can clearly be seen in my book Convercoional Seyler Anobyting Talk Among Friends (19842), and dozens of articles I have published in scholarly journals and books snake exactly the same claims about conversational syle diferences reauting in systemati misludgmens that I make in You Juse Dan’ Uaderuand. Indeed the theoretical and methodological framework use is found not only in te work of John Gumper, but also inthe ‘work of others who studied with him (see the papers collected in ‘Gumpers 19828) oF work in similar traditions, Among those who come immediately to mind are Thomas Kochman (1981 on black white styles; Frederic Frckson (for example, Erickson and Sul 1982, Erickson 1986), who examined the styles net only of blacks sd whites but also of Ialian-Americans, German-Amerians, and Polish-Americans in iteration with each other; Ron and Suzanne ‘Scallon (158, Scollon 1985) on Atbebaskan-Anglo style and Susan Philips (1983), who compares Warm Springs Indian and Anglo styles. The list could go on and on. ‘THE ROLE OF DOMINANCE SN A CULTURAL DIFFERENCE FRAMEWORK Some who are not familiar with this research tradition have misin~ terpreted the theoretical framework to imply that expainieg the imteracional consequences of style diferences denies the existence of other societal forces at work. Specifically, there are those who helleve thet approaching gender differences in ways of speaking 23 “cultural” differences implies that men do not dominate women, butGender and Discourse only misunderstand them. There iso bass for this assumption, 28 lance at all the research in this trition—including my own— makes clear. When Gumperz claims that job interviews herween speakers of British English and speakers of Indian English end badly for the Pakistanis and Indians becxuse of differences in dis- ‘course strategies, he is not denying that there are numerous and pervasive forms of dscrimination agalast Asians in British socery. ‘When Erickson and Shultz show that white counselors end up tall- ing down to black community college students because of differ ‘ences in conventional ways of showing lstenership, they are not denying that racism exists in American society, any more than ‘Kochman denies the existence of racism when be shows systematic differences in attitudes toward “rights of expressiveness” and “ight of sersbiltes” among American blacks and whites, When ‘Sosan Philips shows that Warm Springs Indian children are ystem- sxically misjadged in Anglo-aught cassrooms—due, in pat, © dliferent assumptions about self-dsplay and self-control—she is not denying thet American Indians suffer many forms of dserimina- tion in Anglo soctey. Quite the opposite, every one ofthese scholar, like me explic- Stk states that the consequences of style diferences work to the disadvantage of members of groups that are stigmatized in our society, and to the advantage of those who have the power to ‘enforce ther interpretations. This isthe very kemel of the term and ‘concept of “garekeeping”—frst developed by Erickson (1975) and adopted by Gumperz—uhich underlies mach oftheir own work as ‘wall as that of others working inthis traditon: when style difler- ‘ences are found in encounters between those who hold the keys to societal power—such as community college counselor, state gov- ‘ernment representatives, or job interviewere—and those who wish to benefit from the encouncer by getting career advice, governmen- tal services oa job itis the person secking benefits who system- atialy loses as result of style diferences. In other words, soc! tally determined power diferences are an inextricable element of cotural difference theory and research FIntroduction Another major impetus of Gumper’s work, as well as my own snd that ofthe other scholars working inthis and related traditions, 4s to confront and counteract the social inequality chat reschs from negative stereotyping of minority aslural groups. Thus, when T show (Tannen 1981) thatthe sareorype of Jews as aggressive and pushy results in part from diferencés in conversational style, Tam ot denying that anti-Semitism exists in American society, but at- tempting to combat it. Pact the cause or perhaps the resuly of this misineerprettion ‘of the theoretical framework thet approaches interaciona distress 5 “cultural” patterning lies in an unfortunate dichotomy that has ‘emerged inthe literature, suggesting that approaches to gender and Tanguage fall into two categories: the “cultural difference” ap- proach, es opposed to a power” o “dominance” approach Ist became aware of this framework when I read a paper that hed been presented by Nancy Henley and Cheri Kramarae ata meeting of the National Women's Studies Assocation in 1988 (See Henley and Kramarae 1991] fora published version.) Ar the time it stuck me as ‘an interesting distinction, insofar as the work of Henley, Kramarae, and others who work on gender and langunge inthe Bel of com ‘munication and sociology use dominance as the tating point of their analysis, whereas Matz and Borker (1982) and I (the propo= nents of che “cultural” approach who are identified by Henley and ‘Kramarae) use the Gumperzan framework of euhuraldiference as «starting point! However, since [ have seen this dichotomy not only referred to repeatedly by language and gender researchers but alko elaborated and embroidered upon, {have come to feel that it is really alse one that obfascates more than iclariGes Itimplies chat those who work inthe so-called “power” or “dominance” fame- swork have a corner on the matket of hierarchical relations if the two phenoment are conceptualized as mutually exclusive poles then those who suggest that women’s and men's styles cn be understoed in the Framework of culrral difference are represented as denying that dominance exists. In other words, it implies that “difference” precludes “dominance,” which Is tocally without basis, vGender and Discourse Quite the contrary, the cultural diference framework provides 3 ‘mode! for explaining how dominance can be created in face-to-face interaction. Tewould be absurd to claim that approaching gender differences in verbal behavior as “cultural” in origin and character translates ‘nto a denial of dominance—male or any other kind. As I wrote in You Just Don’t Understand: No o2e could deny that men asa class dominate women Ia our society, and that many individual men seek 10 dominate women In bet lives. And yet male dominance isnot the whle sory. lt 1s not sufficient to aomoune for everything that hsppens to ‘Women and men in conversations—espeially conversations in ‘hich bth are genuinely ying to relate to each ocber with at- tention and respec. The effect of dominance isnot alvays the result of an Imention to dominate. (18) nother words, fr from denying the existence of dominance, exam- ining the woskings of conversational style in interaction can help ‘explain bow dominance is aerally created in interaction. Indeed, the claim that such socal relations as dominance and subordination are consrciedi interaction i one ofthe fundarvental tenets and most important contributions of the imerational socio- linguistic approach to analyzing conversation. In way, itis the very heart ofthe theory underlying that approach and is exactly ‘Why interaction is seen asso important 19 analyze. Fundamental principles of interactional sociolinguistic include the convictions ‘thar (1) roles are nor given but are created in interaction; (2) context is not given bot is constituted by tlc and aeion; (3) nothing that ‘cccurs in interaction ie the sole doing of one party but rather is "olne production,” the result ofthe interaction of individuals? ways of speaking and as 1 demonstrate in everything I've ever writen and discuss directly in chapter 1, 4) linguistic features (such as interruption, volume of tal, indicecness, and so on) can never be aligned on 2 one-to-one basis with interactional inventions or mean ings, in the tense that a word can be assigned a meaning. No oOIntroduction language has meaning except by reference to how it is “famed” ‘Bateson 1972, Goffman 1974) or “contextualized” (Becker 1979, 1984; Gumperz 19828) 6 mn this spirit one of the main themes of You fst Don't Under stands thatthe systematic dlferences in women's and men’s char- acteristic styles often put women ina subordinate position in inter- actions with men. I will give just three of innumerable specie examples ln the chapter “Lectaring and Listening” lustrating that ‘women frequendy take the role of listener and men the rele of leeturer, I make the folowing comment: ‘Once again the lguent a wich women and men Gd ther seis tmayed is aymetieal The lemuer is framed a ape torn sa and experi, cin the rl of teacher ad he Tseer cam inthe rle of ude. If women and ne ook ture giving and eceving lsu thre would be nothing dix tubing soit Whi drhing the bales tne fen seem ro Koll fh beni hey have the ceri women ae oes fed xn surprised Bad tht when they have the expertise, they don't necessarily get the floor. (125) {In a chapter on conflict I show that women's indination to avoid ‘conflict puts them a disadvantage: “Women who are incapable of angry outbursts are incapable of wielding power inthis way. Far ‘worse, their avoidance of conflict opens them up to exploitation” (182-83). Finally, ina chapter on interruption show that men often ad up interrupting women bezause: smen who approach conversation a contest ae ikely to et- pend efor noe suppor the others talk bur to lead the com ‘eration in another dcecion, perhaps one fn which they can ‘ake enter sage by teling a nary or oke or playing koowh ‘lige: But io doings, they expec tel conversational partners to mount resszance. Women wha yleld thee fos doo ot because they are weak or insecure or deferens but be- care they have ie experience in defleing atepts to grab the conversational wheal. 215) FGonder ond Discource ‘The way in which my approach dirs from that ofthe so-called "dominance theorist” is that I believe [ have shown that these processes can result in dominance in conversational interaction ‘without every individual intending to dominace in every instance, ‘Once again, that does not deny che fbcrthae there are numerous {instances in which individuals do stout te dominate, and numeroos other (nonlingustc) sources of gender-related power differences. BEYOND THE NATURE/NURTURE DICHOTOMY ‘Thos, the “caltural difference versus dominance” dichotomy mis- represents the claims and aims of the so-called “difference” Fame+ ‘work. A similar misrepresentatin lies atthe hear of another source of ertcism, namely, the complaint thac deseribing gender difer- ‘ences in verbal behavior at alls “essentials.” This line of attack sssumes that describing differences berween women and men is synonymous with sscribing those differences to women’s “essen- ‘ial nature. This assumption, to, has ao esis in the research itself and results from lack of familiarity withthe intellectual framework in which linguists work, Jn my own work, as in that of my colleagues in ingultcs, the ‘question of the origins of gender ar other linguistic differences is ‘not addressed. Contemporary linguistics is descriptive—our charge is to deseribe the patteins of language we observe—and decidedly not prescriptive. (Unlike grammarians, we don't tell anyone how they sould speak; rather, we ay to account forthe ways they do speak, We are more like anthropologists, who approsch a distant calure to understand i than like missionaries, who seek to change it) Thos, to describe differences fs not to ascribe them w either biological or enltual sources. There are those who believe that the existence of gender differences at very eal ages is evidence that these diferences are biological or genetic in origin. Bu there are also those who argue that children of any age, even infants are treated diferently depending on their gender, and thatthe socaliea- tion of the group is primary, even for very young children,Introduction Although the question ofthe origins of she paters I describe bas not been a foeus of my concern, probably because of my anthra- pologial orentation Ihave been inclined to regard socialization (Gat i, coltual enprience) as the main influence shaping pattems af bekavior. Thus, in You ust Don't Undertond 28 in the present ‘volume, Ice research on the role of childhood peer groups as the source of gendered patterns in ways of speaking” ‘The nmurelnorre question can pethaps best be addressed by smthropologieal researchers who undertake large-scale cross- cultural studies. The question will certainly be addressed 25 well by ongoing studies of gender andthe bran. Even primate studies will be broughe to bear on this question. Whatever the research shows, however, people have passionate attachment to one view or the ther and will necessarily differ in their interpretations of the re= search. Most interesting to me are the assumptions that underlie the fervent contention that differences mast be primarily or even pusely Biological or cultural in origin, Many of those who believe—in my ‘view, wish—the differences to be purely biologics! in origin assume that if thsi the ease, chen women must be subordiate and there is no point in tryingto effet social change. Many ofthose who believe (or wish) the differences tobe purely cultural in origin assure chat ‘this is 30, shey can easly change whatever they don’ like in the socal order. Nether ofthese assumptions seems Justified to me. Nothing is more human than to go against nature and cultural panerns are extremely resistant to change. ‘What is required to effect change ian understanding of the panerns of human behavior as they exis today, en appreciation of the complexity of these paters, and a humane respect for other human beings—other researchers as well as the subjecs of our research. This is whet I have struggled to achieve in all my work, and I hope its evident in what follows. ‘The foregoing discssion is intended to clarify the theoretical background and tssumptions of the approach to gender and fan guage that characterizes the essays collected in this volume. Over- views of the individual essays s well as dseussfons ofthe contentsGender and Discourse in which they were orginally woien, are presented in headnots receding exch chaprer- Shomet thanks to ALL Beker, Rn Sealy, Michal Maco and Pel Fede for ivsanble commen on «defo his tnvoduao, 1s [ft encountered thx plo aan are hy Haney Widdowson (1508). 2 Lever though of melas soekelinglt unl I ariel at George. ‘A th cours I tok in my gadome progam a he Univer af Cares, Berkley, were sly Hngules dase: Moreover, Lage with Dal yes and ‘thers who hve nerve hath dof language nt coc cote i er ‘hinges and add not be tought of 3 “eobeld” 3. "The ft ook wrote, ilk Nal, was» werk of erry exam, where 1 analyed the Bona moder Gres writen the ete of ber He. 4 Taunt adm hr ras Patera be enid representing mae and of researc. 5 Some key sources reflecting this view are Goodwin (1981), SehegoT (98% MeDeemo nd Tyboe (198), and prpers nleced in Duel nd Bre ds (586). ‘6 Ina seas the explication of how faming work fn conversion ean uct intessonal meaning eth sm of all my work, ba se especialy the ‘eer “Famlng™in Phar} Nt Whar Meet! Hw Cbeaonal Sl Mala or ‘Brats You Rel wih Osos (Tannen 1986, sections on fxsingin You fst Det Undarsand Waren and Henin Cm Tannen 1990), andy reser ‘nok Framing Dra Cansen 199). 7 Veale, however tt balogial favors may be at work as wely and ‘would hope the even thve who choose to examina then (of which aga, Cm ot one) woul ot be branded by the otc abel “venialin” arn hae ‘fen ued a a sophinleted form of sadenie rmaling, Atos ha que '0 sepa prieged colarl Bsr rom gnaze bolo faaar bhapees ‘As Sephen [ny Gould fax reportedly pt icin an ifrview (Anger 1953), "Bhology and environment ae iexribly inked" Gould x quoed ae syig, “Tes ligt, hema, philosophical imposible wo pull hem apart” At ‘wom preven from eamininghiereltion of hase factor and impedee ur understanding of hua behavior. Moree, the sgt of any rele ence 0 gender diflerencesdcourages the descpin and understanding of hi- ‘man bebavir ait cron ex whereas uch nderanding ine ncmeny Fat sae an making whatever changes we with rete.Ineroduerion ft beard eh point made hy Waller Ong at panel dessin ontpoken and writen langage ta took plc a conjunction withthe Geogeown Univer sy Round Tableon Languages and Lingies 198 ikak ts not olden tha, in my experienc those wo ll me ehey are cern all ilference ae ‘llega a origin are ually me, aad those wha se equal cata ha hey re eatiely cutraly bused ae usally women. Angier, Nui, 1953. sclni valves noel. Te New York Tes Febery I, 93, BB, ‘Bases, Gregory 172A theory of play ad fantasy. Steps to an eclogy of mind, T7793. Sn Francia: Chandler, Pupehacks New York: Balle. Becker, AL (7B. Texbulg, eltmolny, and sehores Un Javanese ‘Shadow These, The magiion of ely. by AL Becker and Aram Yengoyua, 21. Norwood, Nf: Able. Becker, A LBM. Biography of asemence:A Burmese Proverb. Tex, ploy, and ‘aor The contruction ad recotrvcion of ul and sci, al. by ‘Edward M. Bre, BS-58 Washigson DC: Ameren Ecologia! So ny, Rept: Prospect Haigh, IL: Waveland Pres, Dare Alesina; and Donald Brena (es) 106. The aulenecns coastor, special ie of Text 6323947. aloo, Freeh 75. Garkerping andthe malin pr: lean in eu ‘sling encounter, Harvard Educational Review #:144-70, Eslon, Frederic. 956 Lseing and speaking Language and logue: The Imerdependeace of theory, data, ad apglleaion Georgetown University ‘Round Tablon Languages and Lingus 1985 by Daboesh Tannen, 294.32, Washingoa, DC: Georgeown Universi Press alaon, Frederic, and Jey Shale 962. The counselor gatheeper Sade tnuracon io lverviews, New Yorks Academe Pre Gta, Erving 174, Frame analy. New York: Harper and Raw. Goodwin, Charles. IB. Convertor orginnton. Interaction between spsher sed hearer, New York Acar Pres, anger on Us Deca mg, Const Cant Unenty ‘Gumprs, Jb J. (19826, Langunge and vox iden. Cambridge: Cam- bridge Univertty Pres, Hokey, Nancy, and Chers Krumarae 1991, Mcammonistn, gear andGender and Discourse power "Miconmanclon” and problema al by Niklas Coup- Jan, Howard Gila and John Wienann. Newbury Park, CA: Suge. Kochty Thomas 18 Blak ard white sys fs eoatic. Cheng Uaver- thy of Chicago Press. Latov, Witton. 1972. Sodoingssle pater, Piadelphia: Univerty of Penmleeia Pres, Lakof Robin. 1975. Language snd woman's place New York: Harper sd Row. [Lakof chp Telmach 179. Sic sel witha a grammar of syle. ‘Lang sx, od gee, ed by fh Oran Main Sates sd ‘Leonore Loeb Adler. Anes ofthe New York Academy of Seen 32753~ nm ‘Lato, Robio Telnach 90, Talking power The pole of guage our ves New York Baste Boks ‘Malay Daniel Nand Bc A. Beck, 1582. A eal sppoach to male female mbcommunkacon. Language ard socal Sandy, od: by Job). Gurper, 196-26. Cambridge: Canbrge Untveriy Pens. MeDermor, R Py and Henry Tylbor. 183, On te acest of eosin in convertion, Tem 3327-97. hips, Sura Urmcon, 1983, The ove caure Camunicion nes romand emt onthe Warm Sprig Indian reservation New York Longman, ‘Sucks, Olver 187. Tice. The New York Review of Backs, ouary 2,107, STL Schelof, Emanuel (9H, Discourse wn interactional achievement Some ‘wes of ‘uu’ aed oer thigs thr come berwen senencs, Anayang ‘decoue: Tent od all. Geongeew Univety Round Table on Lan- gage nd Lingus 18, ed by Deborah Tanne, 7-9. Washingon, Ct Georgecwn University Press Séallog, Ran IRS. The machine ops Slee in the nepbor of malfune- tte: Peepecives on aes by Deborah Tannen ar! Mai Savile ‘Trefe,2-30, Norwood, Ny: Abs. Salle, Ron, sed Sussne BK Selle (91: Naraive, Bercy snd a “urehle communication. Norwood, Nf: Able. ‘Tannen, Deborah 191, New Yor Jewish eorveranal syle lemon Tora ofthe Soaogy of Language 30133-9, ‘Tannen, Debora, 182s, Oral aad ieee segs fn spoken sod wrten ‘natives, Language SB1-2, ‘Tanne, Deborah (ed), 182, Spoken a wren language: Exploring = {ytd arcy- Norwood, Nf Abs. 7Introduction ‘Tannen, Deborah, 184, Conversa style: Arlyn talk umong ends, Norwood, Nj: Abies. ‘Tensen, Deborah (ed). 19th. Coherence ia spoken sed wrinen deca, Norwood, Ni: Abies ‘Tenen, Deborah 986, Th or what I mara How conversational se smes or breaks your laos with ethers. New York Willa Moro. Paperock Blaine. ‘Tunsen, Deborah, 189, Talking voles: Repton loge 2d tage fs ronveriional decors. Cambridge: Cribrdge University Pre. ‘Tonner, Deborah 199. You jot don andersand: Worn srl men in cone ‘vermin, New York Willem Moro. Poperback: Bolling ‘Togzen, Deborah 199, Framing a dizoue. New Yoek: Oxford Une Pres ‘Wiowion, Henry. 98, Poetry nd pedagogy. Linge conten: Con ‘ecg observation ad undestng ed by Deborah Temen, 15-77. Necwood, Ni: bien { \ || CHAPTER ONE The Relativity of Linguistic Strategies: Rethinking Power and Solidarity in Gender and Dominance In this chapter { demonstrate thatthe theoretical framewark of power and solidarity is exsential for understanding gender pat ‘ems in language use, and that gender and language is a Sei feigning the dynamics underlying language choice, including suck dimensions as power and salidariy ‘This framewerk is used to show that gender and language research cannot be approached as the mechanizal search for _pecif linguistic phenomena. Using examples fram gonversa- sion as wells literary ereations of conversations, [argue that ‘each ofthe Anguinc strategies that have been claimed to show dominance can alse show solidarity. Far example, one ean talk while another i talking inorder to wrest the flor; this can be seen as move mativaced by pover. Yet one can alo talk ‘along with another in order to show support and agreements ‘this muse be seen as @ move macivated by solidarity. The evo, ‘however, are not mutually exclusive. If botk speakers are en- gaged inva ritual struggle fr the floor, they might experience the entice conversation as a pleasurable ner an. exercise of weGender and Discourse soliderigy on the metalevel. My purpose, then, is ma t quat~ tion that poricilar linguist strategies, suck as intern, may be used ta create dominance, but rather to argue that ineenion and effec are not abways synonymous, and that there ts never an enduring one-to-one relationship berieen a lin- guste device and an inceractive aft. [a seeking to understand individuals experiences of conversation, including dominance, sve will have to look more deeply and more subrly at the workings of conversational interaction. INTROOUCTION N ANALYZING OISCOURSE, many researchers operate on the unstated assumption thet ell speakers proceed along similar lines of iterpretation, o a particular example of discourse ca be taken to represent how discourse works forall speakers. For some spect of discourse, this is undoubtedly true. Yet a lage body of sociolinguistic literature makes clear that, for many aspects of dis- course, this is so only to the exent thet cultural background is shared. To the emene chet cularal bckgrounds differ, lines of nter~ pretation ered habitoa! use of meny linguistic strategies re likely © diverge. One thinks immedietely and minimally of the work of (Gumperz (1982), Erickson and Shale (1982), Scollon and Scollon (0981), and Philips (1983). My own research shows ther cultural difference is nt limited wo the gross and epparent levels of country of origin ond native languege, but also exists at the subeoitaral levels of ethnic heritage, class, geographic region, age, end gende My eorier work (Tennen 1984, 1986) focuses on ethnic and regio style; my most recent work (Tannen 1990) focuses on gender- related stylistic veriation, | draw on this work here to demonstrate that specific linguistic strategies hove widely divergent pocendal meanings! ‘This insight is paricalery significant for research on lenguege sand gender, much of which hes sought to describe the linguistic weThe Relativity of Linguistic Strategies means by which men dominate women in ineracsion. That men dominate women isnot in question; what Iam problematiing is the source and workings of domination and other interpersonal inren- tions and effects. I will show that one cannot locate the source of domination, or of any interperional intention or eff, in Hnguitis strategies such 25 interruption, volubilty, silence, and topic raising, 5 hat been claimed. Similarly, one cannot locate the source of ‘women’s powerlessness in such linguistic strategies as indirecness, taciurnity slenes, and ag questions, as bas slo been claimed. The reason one cannot do this is thatthe same linguistic means can be sted for diferent even oppose, purposes and can have diferent, rent contexts, Thos, # strategy chat ‘seems, ori, intended to dominate may in another conte or in the ‘mouth of another spesker be Inrended or used to esablish connec: tion. Similarly, «strategy that seems, ori, intended to create com nection can inanother context or inthe month of another speaker be Intended or used to establish dominance, Pur another way, the “true intention or motive of any uterance cannot be determined from examination of linguistic form alone. For one thing intentions and effects are not identical. For another, as the sociolinguistic literature has dramatized repeatedly cee espe- cially McDermott and Tylbor 1983; Schegoff 1982, 1988; Erickton 1986; Duranti and Brenneis 1986), human interaction is » “joint production®: everything tat occurs results from the interaction of all parcipans, The soure: ofthe ambiguity and polysemy of lin- guise srategies chat Iwill explore ere isthe paradowcal relation- ship berween she dynamics of power and solidariy. OVERVIEW OF THE CHAPTER Jn cis chaper fet briefly explain the theoretical paradigm of ower and solldariy, Then I show that linguistic swatagies are potentially ambiguous (hey could “mean” ether power or sl argy) and polysemous (they could “mean” bot). Third, I reex- amine and expand the power and solidity famework in light of aGender and Discourse cross-cultural eseurdh, Finally, {demonstrate the relativity af five linguistic strategies: indirecines, interruption, silence versus vol- bility, topic rising, and adversativeness (that is, verbal conic). ‘THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Power and Solidersy Since Brown and Gilman's (1960) inroduction of the concept and ‘subsequent elaborations of it, espectlly those of Frietich (1972) snd Brown and Levinson (1978}1987), the dynamies of power and solidarity have been fundamental to sociolinguistic cheory. (Fasold (0990) provides an overview.) Browe and Gilman based thee fame ‘work on analysis of the use of pronouns in European languages ‘which have two forms ofthe second person proaoun, such a5 the ‘French and yous. In English the closest parallel sto be found in forms of address: fret name vera tte-est name, In Brown and Gilroan's system, power is associated with nonreciprocal use of ‘Pronouns; in English the parallel would be situation in which one speaker adresses the other by ft game but is addressed by ttle last same (For example doctor and patient, teacher and student, Doss and secretary, building resident and elevator operator), Soli- arity is associated with reciprocal pronoun use of sYrometrical forms of address: both speakers address each other by «or by vour ‘iu English, by tletast name or by frst name). Power governs suymmetscal relationships where one is subordinate 9 another; solidarity governs symmetrical relatioashipscharacerzed by social ‘equality and similarity. In ny previous work exploring the relationship between power snd solidarity as i emerges {0 conversational discourse (Tannen 1984, 1986), 1 nove that power and solidarity are in paradenial relation to each other. Thats, although power and solidarity, close ness and distance, seer ac frst tobe opposites, each also entails the other. Any show of solidarity necessarily entails power, in that the requirement of similarity and closeness limits freedom and indepen- dence At the same time, any show of power ental solidarity byThe Relativity of Linguisic Strategie {valving pareipants in relation to exch ocher. This creates a close- ‘eas that can be contrasted with the distance of individuals who hhave no relation to each other at all In Brown and Gilman's paradigm, the key to power is ssynr merry, but itis often thought to be formality. This fs seen in the following anecdote. once ented »lecrure “The Paradox of Power ‘and Solidarity.” The respondent 10 my talk appecred wearing three-piece sult and a knapsack on his back. The audience was amused by the assodation ofthe suit with power the knapsack with , solidarity. There was something immeditely recogniaable inthis semiotic. Indeed, a professor wearing a knapsack might well mark solidarity with sradems st, for example, a protest demonstration, ‘And weating a three-piece suit to the demonstration might mark power by diferentiating the wearer ftom the demonstrators, per~ hhaps even reminding them of his dominant position inthe instar tional hierarchy. Bue wearing a three-piece suit to theboerd meeting of a corporation would mark solidarity with other board members, ‘wheress wenring a knapsack in that sewing would connote not solidarity but disrespee, a move in the power dynamic. The Ambiguity of Linguist Srengies ‘As the preceding example shows the sxe symbol—s three-piece sult—can signal either power or solidasiy, depending on, atleast, the senting (for example, a hoard meeting or student demonstra- tion), the habitual dress style ofthe individual, and the comparison of his clocking with tha wor by others in the interaction. (I say “his” intentionally; the range of meanings would be quite diferent Ifa man’s three-piece sult were worn by 2 weman.) This provides an analogue to the embiguity of linguistic strategies, which are ‘Signals io the semiotic system of language. As Ihave demonstrated at length in previous books (cee expecially Tannen 1984, 1986, 1990), all liguistic strategies are potenilly ambiguous. The power-sliarty dynamic is one fundamental source of ambiguity. ‘What appear 2e attempts to dominate a conversation (un exercise of