GENDER AND INTERACTION

LANGUAGE AND IDENTITY

Mindanao State University – General Santos City

College of Social Sciences and Humanities - English Department

A.Y. 2023-2024

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements in

Language and Identity

Submitted to
PROF. ROSSEL A. MANGARON

Submitted by:

ANA PAULA CAMEROS

LADY JANE VIRALIO

APRIL 2024
 CHAPTER 28: GENDER AND INTERACTION - THEODOSSIA-SOULA
PAVLIDOU

Viralio

1. INTRODUCTION

Gender has been a familiar notion in the study of language in contrast to other scientific
fields albeit with varying senses. Dating back to the fifth century BC, ‘grammatical
gender’ in Indo-European languages has been associated with ‘natural gender’, i.e. the
sex of animate beings denoted by those words. The emergence of the women’s
movement in the late 1960s that the notion of gender entered the field of linguistics from
the point of view of sexism against women

Robin Lakoff’s article ‘Language and Woman’s Place’ (1973)- marked the transition
of satisfaction to dissatisfaction on social order between men and women.

2. FEMINIST APPROACH TO GENDER

● Men and women-former division that is associated with reproductive
function

Perspective on Feminist approach to gender

● The first is associated with the idea that gender cannot or should not be isolated
from other aspects of one’s identity. Intersectionality’ was the term employed for
conceptualizing ways in which ‘sociocultural hierarchies, power differentials and
in/exclusions around discursively and institutionally constructed categories such
as gender, ethnicity, race, class, sexuality, age/generation, nationality, etc.
mutually co-construct each other’ (Lykke, 2006: 151).
● The second perspective comprises standpoints which oppose the very idea of
gender as an attribute, a property of individuals, a stable and static aspect of
identity. Two independently originating approaches in the late 1980s have been
very influential in this context.
 ○ The first, known as ‘doing gender’, was proposed by West and
Zimmerman and is, sociologically, more specifically ethnomethodologically
informed.
○ The second, labeled as ‘gender performativity’, is associated with the
poststructuralist philosopher Judith Butler and draws on theatrical,
anthropological and philosophical analysis.

● gender is constructed through specific corporeal acts and the possibilities that
exist for its cultural transformation through such acts. Zimmerman argued that
gender identity is ‘instituted through a stylized repetition of acts’ and through ‘the
stylization of the body’ (1988: 519).
● Butler considered such acts to be performative both in the sense of ‘dramatic’
and of ‘non-referential’.
● The dramaturgical aspect involves two key elements: (a) repetition (incorporating
both re-enactment and re-experience at the same time) of a set of meanings that
are already socially established; (b) the public nature of the act, which entails that
gender cannot be a matter of merely individual choice, especially when this runs
counter to the established binary and heterosexual gender frame, but is
subjected to social sanctions and taboos.
● Non-referentiality, on the other hand, relates directly, though without explicit
reference at that time, to Austin’s (1962) original idea of performative utterances,
i.e. utterances that do not describe or represent the world as opposed to
constatives and, therefore, cannot be said to be true or false. Instead,
performative utterances do something – e.g. marrying, promising, baptizing, etc.
– and in this sense they constitute a ‘reality’. Analogously, gender attributes are
not referential: they do not express or reveal an identity ‘behind’ the act itself, but
constitute that very identity.
● Butler goes further than West and Zimmerman is the idea that not only gender
but also sex itself is a construction, i.e. that bodies are cultivated, through a
series of acts which are reiterated, revised and consolidated over time into
 discrete sexes ‘with “natural” appearances and “natural” heterosexual
dispositions’ (Butler, 1988: 524)
3. GENDERING INTERACTION
● By ‘gendering interaction’ means that the linguistic and sociocultural
constraints that inform interaction and which are invested with dominant
gender ideologies
● Some of the constraints gendering interaction are structural: they result
from broader social and institutional arrangements that create, maintain
and reinforce gender differences.Structural constraints entail, among other
things, differential access for men and women to positions, activities,
spaces, etc., in society, and to the kind of discourses associated with
them, including talk and silence, speech genres/events/acts (see Eckert
and McConnell-Ginet, 2003: 92ff).

3.1 Constraints of the linguistic approach

● Engaging in linguistic interaction involves the use of at least one language,

and languages have various ways for dividing humans into two mutually
exclusive categories according to sex. The most common means for
establishing such a dichotomy are lexical and grammatical gender.
● A recent study of all nouns (about 28,000) in a contemporary Modern
Greek dictionary indicated that there are almost twice as many feminine
nouns as masculine ones (45.0% vs 23.8%).
● McConnell-Ginet (2003: 91) observes, it is difficult for English speakers ‘to
talk about a third person without attributing sex to them – and virtually
impossible to do so over an extended period’, because of the gendered
third-person pronouns in English, one can imagine the impact of a
gendered language like Greek on speakers’ choices.
●

Cameros

3.2 Sociocultural constraints on interaction: gender stereotypes and norms

 Sociocultural constraints on interaction are the limitations that are set to limit
the interaction between one person and another within a society. Two of these
constraints are gender stereotypes and norms. In 2003, Talbot mentioned that
“stereotyping” involves simplification, reduction, and naturalization of the differences
across social groups. Stereotyping as a result divided people into acceptable and
unacceptable.

● Gender Stereotypes. These are the beliefs about what certain traits and
behaviors are typically seen in a particular gender. (e.g. men being
supposed to be strong and emotionless, women being supposed to be
gentle and nurturing.)
● Gender Norms. These are the “unwritten rules” of a society on how
particular a gender should behave in specific situations. These norms
usually influence the way of dressing up, speech patterns, and even
conversation topics.

Women and men are stereotyped as being different from one another.
Linguistically, superficial speaking/“gossip” is stereotyped as women's activity making
women appear to be “unreliable.” It is said that men are incompatible in the activity of
gossiping but, according to Johnson and Finlay (1997), men do actually gossip but
when they do, it is more likely to create a sense of knowledge and understanding.

4. GENDERED INTERACTION

Gendered interaction research was an extension of Lakoff’s findings. According

to Lakoff’s research in 1975, women use more unsure words, women are more polite
when speaking, and women use more tag questions which is the complete opposite
when it comes to men. Lakoff’s findings led Tannen (1990) into publishing the roots of
miscommunication between women and men.

● Sociolinguistic Universal Tendencies Research (Janet Holmes, 1998) -

explores repeating patterns in how social factors affect language use in
 different speech communities worldwide. Here are some proposed
generalization by Holmes:
a. The work women do to keep the interaction going.
b. Women tend to use linguistic devices that emphasize solidarity.
c. Men tend to interact in ways which will maintain and increase their
power and status.
d. Women use more standard forms than men from the same social
group in the same social context.

These generalizations led to stereotypes which differentiated women from men.

According to Holmes (1998), women and men have two different communication styles
which she named ‘rapport-talk’ and ‘report-talk’.

Genderlect, Deborah Tannen’s theory about gendered style of communication.

a. Rapport Talk. An interaction with the goal to establish connection and

social affiliation through shared experiences such as gossiping and asking
for advice, and this is stereotyped as women’s activity. (Private Speaking)
b. Report Talk. An interaction with the goal to exchange information
conveniently through dropping factual information and details to
problem-solving such as debating opinions. (Public Speaking)

According to Pavlidou, the aforementioned presentation has purposefully

excluded certain details, as the focus lies on the types of explanations that have been
used to explain the results rather than the observational suitability of these broad
generalizations. In other words, how are those differences able to be explained, given
that these generalizations are acceptable from a descriptive perspective?

Prior to the 1990s, there were two types of justifications: referred to as the
dominance and the difference models, took the lead.

● Dominance. The first type of justification is focused on the differences in

the linguistic behavior of women and men as a result of differential power
in the society. It mostly conveys the dominance-subordination relationship
 between women and men. (e.g. Man being a president (dominant position)
and woman being the first lady (subordinate)
● Differences. The second type of justification is a result of inequality but it
explains how women and men are different in conversational styles but
are equally good at the same time. Dominance was introduced by Maltz
and Borker (1982) in Language and Gender but it peaked through
Tannen’s (1990) elaboration. They attempted to explain how
miscommunication happens by stating that the same word might have
different meanings for the women and the men.

Researchers may fall into the trap of focusing on differences without clearly
explaining and/or questioning underlying assumptions and implications, which, from a
feminist perspective, serves to reinforce stereotypes rather than promote societal
change.

5. CONSTRUCTING GENDER IN INTERACTION

This section explores how individuals in social interactions strategically use

language and other semiotic resources to present themselves within available gender
categories. Pavlidou (1991) emphasized language as a main tool for constructing
gender in interaction which may involve how individuals display themselves femininely
or masculinely. This section acknowledges that gender construction is not solely based
on language. Social context, power dynamics, and participants' goals would also be
considered in understanding how gender is interactionally achieved. One example is
social hierarchy as one factor in constructing one’s gender through interactions such as
politeness, which is seen as an feminine act, is viewed as a strong way of interacting
because it gives off classiness and modesty.

Key points:

● According to Pavlidou (1991), individuals tend to creatively use language

as a mode of presenting or performing their gender identity in specific
 ways. This performance may include politeness markers, humor,
assertiveness, etc.
● Aside from those verbal cues, Pavlidou (1991) emphasized the important
role of some non-verbal cues such as gestures in constructing gender
during interactions.
● Butler (1988) suggests that navigating gendered expectations through
language use can involve both anxiety (about conforming to norms) and
pleasure (in creatively performing or challenging them).

Conversational Analysis on Constructing Gender in Interaction

Individuals have conversations every day, chatting with friends, family, or

colleagues. Conversation analysis focuses on these everyday interactions. So,
conversation analysts break down conversations into smaller pieces to see how they
function. Pavlidou (1991) recommended the use of Conversation Analysis methods in
studying about constructing gender in interaction, particularly looking at turn-taking,
repair mechanisms, and other sequential practices to understand how gender is
constructed moment-by-moment in interaction.

a. Language choices (vocabulary, politeness markers, sentence structure)

b. Turn-taking patterns (who talks when)
c. Repair mechanisms (how misunderstandings are addressed)
d. How participants orient to each other's gender throughout the
conversation
6. CONCLUSION: PERSPECTIVES AND CHALLENGES

Perspectives:

● Gender shapes interaction

There's widespread agreement that gender plays a significant role in how
people communicate and interact. This can involve differences in communication
styles, conversational patterns, and expectations for behavior.
● Multiple perspectives exist
 There are various theoretical frameworks to understand gender and
interaction. Some, like Deborah Tannen's Difference Theory (genderlect),
propose inherent differences in communication styles between men and women.
Others, like conversation analysis, focus on how social power dynamics and
cultural norms influence interaction.

Challenges
● Oversimplification
Some theories might oversimplify gender differences, neglecting the
influence of culture, social class, and individual personalities.
● Power dynamics
Understanding how power dynamics and social contexts influence
interaction is crucial. Focusing solely on gender might overlook the complexities
of communication.
● Change and fluidity
Gender roles and communication styles are constantly evolving. Research
needs to stay up-to-date with these changes and acknowledge fluidity within
gender identities.
 Annotated Bibliography

1.)

Abstract

This study used a conversation analysis design guided by a questionnaire

adopted from Rowe and Levine (2015) to assess the linguistic gender differences of
male and female. Three pairs of interactants of varied age groups, children, teens, and
adults, were observed as they engaged in dyadic conversations. Interactants chose the
topic of their choice to give the conversation a natural and smooth flow. Age, gender
and physical appearance were noted to describe the profile of interactants and to find
out how these would possibly influence their dyadic encounters. Elements of
communication such as number of interruptions, clarifications, reference to past and
future events, and initiators were noted. Social aspects of communication relating to
speech acts were also observed since this would show similarities and differences
between male and female interactants. One of the conclusions reached in this study
was age and physical appearance had no impact since each pair of interactants
belonged to the same age group and all interactants were physically fair. Gender
differences, however, were manifested in the varied communication elements as well as
in the social aspects of communication, particularly in speech acts.

Title: He's a Man and She's a Woman: A Conversation Analysis on Linguistic Gender
Differences

Authors: Fairuz Mohd Rashid & Norizan Abd Ghafar

Copyright Date: 2014

Statement of the Problem:

1. What generalizations can be made about the age of interactants?

2. What generalizations can be made about the different sex-gender combinations of
interactants?

3. Could you notice any effects that the physical appearance of interactants had on the
communications?

4. Who spoke the most? The least?

5. Who interrupted whom the most often? How did gender, age, or other factors affect
this?

6. What generalizations can you make about the nature of interactants and the type of
‘speech acts” as they performed?

7. Humans are the only animals for which communication about past and future events
is common. What does the data show about this?

8. What correlations can you make between asking for clarification and the nature of the
interactant?

9. Could you see any consistencies in who opened and closed an interaction and how it
was done?

10. Did age have anything to do with this?

11. Did gender have anything to do with this?

Method/s: Qualitative, Conversational Analysis

Findings: Among the speech acts, questioning was the most observed act performed
by male interactants. This was followed by demanding and instructing which is mostly
carried out by female interactants. Interactants had equal numbers of correcting. This is
largely due to their close age gap. The act of correcting usually happens when there is a
big age gap between communicators.

Recommendations: n/a

Source:
https://ijels.com/detail/he-s-a-man-and-she-s-a-woman-a-conversation-analysis-on-lingu
istic-gender-differences/

2.)
Abstract

This paper aims to study the different roles both men and women play when they
communicate in friendly cross-sex conversations. It also attempts to explain if men and
women’s daily interactions can testify those persistent stereotypes of women and men
as language users. The five stretches of conversational segments analyzed in the paper
were multi-party cross-sex casual conversations. These extracts were videorecorded in
the sitting-room of our flat. The three interactants as international students in Wales,
come from China. They are two boys and one girl. The findings show that women
display a greater tendency to ask questions; women are more likely to adopt a strategy
of “silent protest” after they have been interrupted or have received a delayed minimal
response. And men are more likely to interrupt the speech of their conversational
partners.

Title: Conversational Dominance and the Asymmetric Distribution of Roles in Cross-Sex

Conversation

Authors: Gang Zhou , Xiaochun Niu

Copyright Date: 2017

Statement of the Problem:

1. Which gender asks more frequently?

2. What are the strategies used by a certain gender?

Method/s: The five stretches of conversational segments analyzed in the paper were
multi-party cross-sex casual conversations.

Findings: The analyses based on the recorded data have partly proved that: women
display a greater tendency to ask questions; women are more likely to adopt a strategy
of “silent protest” after they have been interrupted or have received a delayed minimal
response.

Recommendations: n/a
Source: https://www.arcjournals.org/pdfs/ijsell/v5-i9/1.pdf

3.)

Abstract:We examined how the random grouping of new students during their first
week at college influences their friendships later on. Both male and female students are
significantly more likely to form friendships with others of the same gender if they were
randomly placed in the same group during their initial week on campus. This tendency
is particularly pronounced among women. Our findings were supported by experiments
where students played a trust game repeatedly in a lab setting. Women tended to
maintain consistent relationships and were less adaptable compared to men when
interacting with individuals they had previously engaged with. Despite not having an
inherent preference for same-gender interaction, these differences in behavior were
sufficient to create a pattern of similarity in friendship networks.

Title: “Gender differences in social interactions”

Authors: Guido Friebel, Marie Lalanne, Bernard Richter, Peter Schwardmann, Paul
Seabright

Copyright Date: 2021

Statement of the Problem: Are there differences in the way men and women create
social networks? And if so, what could explain these differences?

Method/s:The lab experiment which people participated in is meant to reflect, in a

stylized way, the initiation of social relationships through a trust game. In particular, we
investigate to what extent women and men, in a second round of a trust game, behave
differently with respect to people they interacted with in a first round of the game, and to
newcomers in the second round. We detail here the two stages of the experiment, as
well as the different treatments we implemented.

Findings: Overall, a natural way to interpret our findings is in terms of the balance
between stability and flexibility in the formation and maintenance of social links. Stability
means continuing to interact with former partners without being influenced too much by
their current or recent behavior. Flexibility means adapting your interactions to the
current or recent behavior of the partner, and its likely benefit for you in the future. All
subjects demonstrate a mix of stability and flexibility, but women seem to place the
cursor closer to the stability end of the scale, and men to place it closer to the flexibility
end of the scale. An interesting and apparently unintended consequence of this is that
both men’s and women’s friendship networks display substantial homophily, with the
degree of homophily even greater for women than it is for men.

Recommendations: Our results suggest that gender differences in the shape of social
networks may be, at least in part, based on gender differences in preferences over
social interactions. In particular, our findings imply that new opportunities for women to
form connections are less likely to divert investments of time, energy and other
resources from the maintenance of existing links than they are for men

Source:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268121001104#sec000

4.)

Abstract:The need to optimize student interactions in universities for enhanced

academic performance has been a subject of debate and discussion in different
academic fora. A number of studies have shown that students, both male and female,
can assert themselves academically if they are provided with opportunities for active
participation and interaction with their lecturers and peers for both the horizontal and the
vertical sharing of knowledge. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to investigate
the gender-based interaction practices of science, mathematics and technology
university students, and how these interactive patterns influence their academic
performance.

Title: “A Gender-Based Analysis of Classroom Interaction Practices: The Effect

Thereof on University Students’ Academic Performance “

Authors:Norman Rudhumbu

Copyright Date: 2022

Statement of the Problem: how these interactive patterns influence their academic
performance?

Method/s:A cross-sectional survey design that employed a quantitative approach

located in the post-positivist paradigm was used in the study. The study was guided by
the deductive theory. The study was conducted in 2021 at three selected universities in
Bindura, a town that is about 100 kilometres from Harare, the capital city of Zimbabwe.

Findings: The study sought to establish gender-interaction practices of university

science, mathematics and technology students, as well as the influence of interaction
levels on academic performance; and a number of conclusions were reached. Firstly,
institutional practices are among the major factors in the perpetuation of gender
differences in the interaction levels of students, due to the lack of gender-equity policies.
Secondly, lecturer behaviours in the classroom affect the genderinteraction levels of
students. A lecturer who gives equal opportunities for all students to participate during
class raises the interaction levels of all students; while those lecturers who favour one
gender group above another demoralise the shunned group, leading to low levels of
interaction of the group discriminated during learning. Thirdly, the way parents raise and
socialise their children has an effect on their future learning behaviour at school; as
parents who raise their children to compete and stand tall all the time will develop their
children into future students, who actively participate in school activities, such as active
participation in class.

Recommendations: Universities need to develop gender-equity policies that act as

guides to ensure equal opportunities by students in all institutional activities. It was also
recommended that curriculum designers in universities need to develop learning
materials that are gender neutral, in order to promote gender equity in the universities in
general, and in classrooms in particular. Thirdly, parents, as the primary sources of
socialisation, should use home practices that encourage their girl children not to look
down upon themselves, but to believe that they can perform any activities as well as
boy children.

Source:https://philpapers.org/archive/RUDAGA.pdf
5.)

Abstract:The objective of the present study is to explore the effect of gender on the
patterns of classroom interactions between teachers and students in Iranian EFL
classrooms. Twenty four classes were observed, recorded and the transcripts were
produced. Frequency and percentage of discourse acts produced by male and female
teachers on one hand, and male and female students on the other hand, were
computed and compared with each other. Chi-square tests were run to diagnose the
significant differences. According to the results of the study, although males and
females shared some features, the patterns of teacher-student interactions were gender
related. Female teachers were more interactive, supportive and patient with their
students than male teachers. They asked more referential questions, gave more
compliments and used less directive forms. On the other hand, the patterns of
Student-Teacher Talk were also affected by the gender of students. While male students
initiated more exchanges with their teachers, female students preferred to be addressed
by their teachers. Male students also made more humor and gave more feedback to
their teachers.

Title: The Effect of Gender on the Patterns of Classroom Interaction

Authors: Nasser Rashidi , Sahar Naderi

Copyright Date: 2012

Statement of the Problem: In their interactions with their students, are male and
female teachers different from each other?

How are the patterns of classroom interactions (Student-Teacher Talk) affected by the
gender of students?

Is classroom discourse a gender-related phenomenon?

Method/s:24 teachers and their 358 students in 24 classes in Bahar Institute took part
in this study. Twelve teachers were male and twelve teachers were female.The process
of data collection consisted of two steps. The first step included the observation of
classes and tape-recording the classroom conversations in which the researcher was
present as a non-participant observer.

Findings: According to the results of the study, male and female teachers are different
from each other while they interact with their students. In other words, there is a great
difference between the behavior of men and women (teachers) in the classrooms. To
give some examples, male teachers used many display questions but female teachers
asked more referential questions which promoted more interactions between the
students and the teacher. Female teachers were more interactive with their students
both in single-gender and mixed-gender classes; they encouraged different interactive
tasks such as peer and group works in their classes. Female teachers were also more
supportive and patient.

Recommendations:

Source:http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.edu.20120203.02.html#Sec2
References

Butler, J. 1998. “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in

Phenomenology and Feminist Theory on JSTOR.” Www.Jstor.Org.

De Francisco, Victoria Leto. 1992. “Deborah Tannen, You Just Don’t Understand:

Women and Men in Conversation. New York: William Morrow &Amp; Co., 1990.

Pp. 330.” Language in Society 21(2):319–24. doi: 10.1017/s0047404500015372

Holmes, J., Wilson, N. (2022.) “An Introduction to Sociolinguistics.” Routledge & CRC

Press. Retrieved

https://www.routledge.com/An-Introduction-to-Sociolinguistics/Holmes-Wilson/p/b

ook/9780367421106

Maltz, D., & Borker, R. (1982). A Cultural approach to male-female miscommunication.

In J. J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=591189

Pavlidou, T. (2011.) “Gender and interaction.” Sage. p. 412-427

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278404351_Gender_and_interaction

Schegloff, E.,Gumperz, J.,Hymes, D. (1972.) “Sequencing In Conversational Openings.”

American Anthropologist. 10.1515/9783110880434-006

Talbot, M. (2008.) “Gender Stereotypes: Reproduction and Challenge.” Research Gate.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227577465_Gender_Stereotypes_Repr

oduction_and_Challenge

West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (2009). ACCOUNTING FOR DOING GENDER. Gender

and Society, 23(1), 112–122. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20676758