This is anoffprintfrom:

BettinaBaronandHelgaKotthoff(eds)Genderin Interaction.

Perspectivesonfemininityandmasculinityinethnographyanddiscourse.JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany

AmsterdamlPhiladelphia2002

(PublishedasV01.93of theseriesPRAGMATICS AND BEYOND NEW SERIES,

ISSN 0922-842X)

ISBN 9027251126 (Hb;Eur.)/ 1588111105(Hb;US) 2002- JohnBenjaminsB.Y.

No partof thisbookmaybereproducedin anyform,byprint,photoprint,microfilmor anyothermeans,withoutwrittenpermission

fromthepublisher.

Theorizinggender

Feministawarenessandlanguagechange

RaehelGiora

1. Introduction

Mostrecentresearchintogenderandlanguagechallengesthedominantsex-differenceorientedapproacheswhichmaintainthatwomenaredifferentfrommen,whetheressentiallyorbysocialization(e.g.,Coates1986,1996).Thissex-differencevieweithercondemnswomen'sdifferentspeechassociallydysfunc-tionalanddeficient(e.g.,Lakoff1975;KendallandTanne~1996),orembracesit asa 'differentbut equallyvalid'culture(e.g.,Tannen1990).The 'differentanddeficient'approachiscriticizedfor implyingthat,toimprovetheirsocialstatus,individualwomenshouldtransformtheirstyle,andadjustthemselvestomen'slinguisticnorms(e.g.,Crawford1996).Findingsofdifferencehavebeenlargelyappropriated,andserveto oppresswomen:Theyeithergiverisetoindustriesofself-correction,oraremisusedtoconsolidateandjustifywomen'sinferiorsocialposition(Cameron1996).

Theapoliticalcross-culturemodel(e.g.,MaltzandBorker1982;HenleyandKramarae1988,1991;Tannen1990)alsoimpliesaffirmationof inequality:Viewingwomenand menasbelongingto two equallyvalidbut differentculturescallsfornochange,therebymaintainingtheprevailingsocialstructure(Troemel-Ploetz1991).Thus,if 'communicationfailures'arearesultofculturecross-blindness,no oneis to blame.Indeed,analysisof talkaboutviolenceagainstwomen(acquaintancerape)revealsthatsuchaviewleadsto victimblaming,deflectionof accountabilityfromviolentmen,andafocusonmoni-toringwomen'sbut notmen'sbehavior.Afterall, if womenandmen"holddifferent sytemsofmeaningsaboutconsent,'miscommunication'isinevitableandno on is ulp;1bl(orrape"(Crawford1996:175).Difference,concludes,nm'ron(llL6), followingI': k rl andM onnell-Ginet(1992),is a conse-

330 RaehelGiora Theorizinggender 331

quenceofinequality,andtolerancetodifferencepropagatesit:"Tosuppqsethat[...] if onlywevaluedwomen'sstylesashighlyasmen'stherewouldbenoproblem,is reminiscentof right-wingpseudo-feminismwhichenjoinsustohonorthehousewifeandmotherfordoingthemostimportantjob... feminismisnotaboutgivinghousewivestheirdue,it isaboutchangingtheconditionsofdomesticlaboraltogether"(Cameron1996:44).

Boththe'differentanddeficient'and'differentbutequallyvalid'approach-es,then,areproblematicpolitically:Theyresultin maintaininginequality.However,theyarealsoinadequateasdescriptivetheories.Thereis agrowingbodyof evidence(e.g.,ArielandGiora1992a,b, 1998;Crawford1996;Freed1992;Freedand Greenwood1996)disconfirmingthe differenceview.Forexample,theconsensualbeliefthatwomenarecooperative,employingaddress-ee-orientedspeechbehavior,whereasmenaredominant,employingspeaker-orientedspeechbehavior(e.g.,MaltzandBorker1982;Cameron1985;Coates1986;Tannen1990;JamesandDrakich1993;JamesandClarke1993;West1995),hasnotgainedsupport(e.g.,ArielandGiora1992a,b,1998;JamesandDrakich 1993;Jamesand Clarke 1993).Neitherhas the widelyacceptedassociationbetweenwomenandstandardspeechandmenandnonstandardspeech(e.g.,Eckert1998;James1996;Hibiya 1988;Rickford1991;Salami1991).GreenwoodandFreed(1992:206)foundthat"neithersexnoragealonecanaccountforthedistinctvariations"inusingquestionsinconversation.Evenhighly'feminine'behavior,suchaspolitespeechis notuniquelyfeminine.InJavanese,forinstance,womenhavebeenobservedtobehavemorepolitelythanmenwithinfamilycircles,but in public,it is menwhobehavemorepolitely(Smith-Hefner1988).Moreover,a speaker'ssocialidentitiesmayfluctuateacrossa lifetimeof communicativeevents.Trabelsi(1991),for instance,hasshownthatyoungTuniswomenemployspeechmarkerswhichsuggestidentifi-cationwithmenandmodernity.OlderTuniswomenmanifestspeechmarkerswhichsuggestthattheyidentifywith Tunistraditionalvalues.Middle-agedTuniswomenwaverbetweenthetwostyles,dependingontheirinterlocutors.In addition,Jabeur(1987)andTrabelsi(1991)foundthatyoungTuniswomendonotalwaysalignthemselveswithmen.Forinstance,unlikeTunismen,theyuseFrenchborrowingsto projectidentificationwith freedomfrom Arabsociety."Tosummarize,then,partofaTuniswoman'scommunicativecompe-tenceliesinmanaginganumberofsocialidentities.Becausedifferentidentitiesmaybeofprimarysaliencein aparticularcommunicativeevent,hercommuni-cativecompetenceliesin choosingthelinguisticvariablesthatexpresstheseidentities"(Meyerhoff1996:206).

But mostimportantly,womenandmencanbeverymuchalike:Wetzel(1988)foundthatJapanesemenspeakverymuchlikeWesternwomen.In fact,Freed(1992)accusedTannen(1990)of misrepresentingMaltzandBorker's(1982)and Goodwin's(1980)findings,presentingthemas supportinga'difference'theory,whiletheresearchersthemselvesemphasizedthesimilaritybetweenthesexes.Also,asUchida(1992)notes,Tannen(1984,1986)herselfshowedthatgenderwasnotasignificantfactorin conversationsbetweentwoethnicgroups.

The alternativeto thedifferencehypothesis,then,stressesthesimilaritybetweenthesexes.Toshowthatwomen'sandmen'slinguisticbehaviorismuchmorealikethandifferent,Freed(1992)and FreedandGreenwood(1996)examinedtheeffectof socialcontexton people'sbehavior.Theyfocusedonsymmetrictalkbetweenfriendsofbothsexes.Lookingintotheconditionsofuseof twotypically'feminine'featuresof speech:'Youknow'andquestions,theyfoundnodifferencein amountanduseof thesehedgesbetweenwomenandmen.Rather,theuseofthesedeviceswasfoundtobesensitivetosituations,andtovarywithrespecttothedemandofthetask.

In asimilarvein,Crawford(1996:17)proposestoviewlanguageas"asetofstrategiesfornegotiatingthesociallandscape- anactionorientedmedium".Thisconstructionistview(followingPotterandWetherelll987)conceptualizesgenderasasystemofsocialrelationsoperatingattheindividual,socialstructur-al,andinteractionallevels.Insteadof focusingon isolatedfeaturesof speech,constructionistorientedresearchcentersoninteractionalanalysis."It opensthewayfor analyzinghow socialgroupings,hierarchies,and powerrelationsstructureinteraction,constrainspeakers'options,andaffectthekindsofsocialfeedbackspeakersreceive"(Crawford1996:171).ForCrawford,women'sandmen'sspeechisbestconceptualizedasacollaborativesocialactivityratherthanbeinggroundedinessentialindividualtraits.

However,conceptualizingspeechasa collaborativesocialactivitywhereeachpartyhasa(nequallyvalid)role,or designinganexperimentalenviron-mentwhichplaceswomenandmenin symmetricalsocialtasksarejustasproblematicaslookingfor differences.It maskstherealproblem.A homoge-neouspictureofsimilarityhelpsmaintaintheunequalsocialstructurejustasmuchasthe'differentbut equal'approachdoes.Theclaimthatwomenandmenaremorealikethandifferent(e.g.,Fuchs-Epstein1988)maydisguisetheproblemof inequality,therebyimplyingthatno changeis necessary.Thoughwomenandmenmayexhibitsimilarlinguisticbehaviorin agivensituation,this doesnot precludethe possibilitythattheyactunderdifferentsocial

332 RachelGiora" Theorizinggender333

constraints.Forinstance,womenandmencouldbehavealike,notb({.causetheyarereallyalike,butbecausewomen,asa powerlesssocialgroup,employanassimilationstrategyandcopythewaysandvaluesofmen.Or consider,again,FreedandGreenwood's(1996)findings.Sofartheyhavebeenabletoshowthatmencanmaster'feminine'or 'powerless'talk.However,it stillremainsto beseenwhetherwomenandmenwill faresimilarlywhenthetaskrequiresuseofwhatisconsidered'masculine'or 'powerful'linguisticbehavior(cf.KendallandTannen1996).Findingsofsimilarity,then,maybeillusory,andmaypropagateinequalityjustasfindingsofdifference.If feminismisaboutchangingtheworld- findingsofsimilaritywill notprovidetherightdrive.

Apartfrombeingproblematicpolitically,thesimilarityhypothesisis alsoproblematictheoretically.Just as the differencehypothesisis deficientinhandlingfindingsofsimilarity,soisthesimilarityorientedapproach;it cannothandlefindingsofdifference.

Thebasicweaknessinherentinbothhypothesesisthattheymainlystudyfeaturesratherthanstrategies(andresultantfeatures).Featuresareasuperfi-cial andlocalphenomen0I:1:.Theydon'tnecessarilytell usmuchaboutthestrategieswhichinspirethem.Differentsurfacebehaviorsmaybeinducedbythe samemotivation,while similarstylesmaybe a functionof differentlinguisticstrategies.

In recentstudies(ArielandGiora1992a,b, 1998;Giora1996,1997)MiraArielandI proposedtoconsidertheinterfaceofsocialidentity(e.g.,gender)andlanguage.Wefocusedontherelationofacertainlinguisticbehavioranditsmotivation,i.e.,thestrategythatinducesit. We assumed,followinggrouprelationtheories(e.g.,Giles1984;Tajfel1978)that(feminist)awarenessshould

incitedivergencestrategy,whilelackofit shouldresultinconvergencestrategy.For womendivergenceimpliesadoptinga Selfpoint of viewin language,whereuponan ingroupmemberidentifieswith her owngroup'sobjectives,values,andinterests.ConvergenceimpliesadoptinganOtherpointofviewinlanguage,whereuponan ingroup memberidentifieswith an outgroup'sobjectives,values,andinterests.Givengrouprelationstheories,then,nonfemi-nistfemalespeakerswouldemployaconvergencestrategy,exhibitingalinguis-ticbehaviorsimilartothatofmen's.In contrast,feminists'linguisticbehaviorwoulddifferfrombothnonfeministfemaleandmalespeakers'.Uponsuchaviewfeaturesimilaritiesanddifferencesarejustaby-product.

2. Selfvs.Otherpointofview

Whatdoesit meanto adopta selfpointof viewin language?To adoptaselfpointofviewoneshouldbeorientedtowardsone'sgroup'sinterests.Thusoneshouldfocusoningroupratherthanonoutgroupmembers.FocusingontheSelfratherthanontheOtherpredicts,amongotherthings,that,in women'swritings,femalecharacterswouldoutnumbermalecharacters.

Similarly,whenoneadoptsaSelfpointof view,one'singroupmembersshouldbeforemostonone'smind.LinguisticallythismeansthattheSelfshouldserveasapointofreferencetotheOther.Thus,whenanchoringonecharacterontoanother('X' is theanchorin 'X'sfriend',and'friend'is anchored,e.g.,Peteris Mary'sfriend),ingroupmembersshouldbe assignedthe role ofanchors.Outgroupmembersshouldoutnumberingroupmembersin theroleof anchored,dependentcharacters.For femalespeakers,then,to havemoremalethanfemalecharactersasanchored,andmorefemalethanmalecharacters

in theroleofanchorsistoadoptaSelfpointofview.FortheSelf,all theOthersarealike(e.g.,LinvilleandJones1980),while

one'singroupmembersareeachdistinct(e.g.,Secord,BevanandKatz1956;Tajfel,Sheikhand Gardner1964;Malpassand Kravitz1969;ChanceandGoldstein1975;BrighamandBarkowitz1978;Stephen1985).ToadoptaSelfpointofviewin thisrespectmeanstoindividuateingroupmembers.Individu-atingcanbeachievedby e.g.,naming.To adopta Selfpointof view,femalespeakersshouldnamemorefemalethanmalecharacters.Theyshoulddosobymeansoffullorlastnames,sincelastnamesindividuatecharactersmuchmore

effectivelythanfirstnames,because(inWesternculture)therearemanymorelastthanfirstnames(seeWeitman1987).

Portrayingingroupmembersasindependentis adoptinga Selfpointofview,since(in Westernculture,atleast)dependencyimplieslackof controloverone'slife.ToadoptaSelfpointofview,womenwriters,especiallyfictionwriters(whoneednotbeconstrainedbyreality),shouldportraymorewomenthanmenasfunctional.In contrast,familydescriptions,whichportrayanindividualaspartofalargerwholeratherthanasaself-sufficiententity,shouldbeassignedtooutgroupmembers.

FortheSelf,theOthermaybeconceivedofasameanstoanend:anobject.ToadoptaSelfpointofview,womenshouldobjectifymenratherthanwomen;theyshouldusemoreexternaldescriptions(i.e.,thosebasedonlookandbodilycharacteristics)for malethanfor femalecharacters,andusemoresex-baseddescriptionsformales(e.g.,'male',asopposedto 'person')thanforfemales.

334 Raehe1Giora

WhenoneadoptsaSelfpointofview,one'singroupmembersshouldnotonlyplaytheroleofprotagonist(seeabove),butthisprotagonis1:shouldnotbedestroyedor die.Betweentheoptionsofbeingeitheravictimor anaggressor,ingroupmembersshouldnotbevictims.Rather,theyshouldvictimizeout-groupmembers.

Beingin poweris consideredapositivestatein Westernculture.Hence,betweenthealternativesof eitherbeingin controlorundercontrolof others,especiallyundercontrolofoutgroupmembers,aSelfperspectiveshouldprefertheformer.To adopta Selfpointof view,ingroupmembersshouldbepor-trayedaspowerful,exertingpoweron outgroupmembers,e.g.,bytryingtoaffecttheOther'sbehavior,asin commands,or threats,or moregenerallybyusingwhatGreen(1975)hastermedimpositivespeechacts(i.e.,speechactswhichimposethespeaker'swillontheaddressee).Moreover,anactualcompli-anceof theaddresseewiththespeaker'swishtestifiesto thespeaker'spower.Hence,whenoutgroupmemberscomplywith theingroupmorethanwithoutgroupmembers,thissuggestssettingoutfromaSelfpointofview.Thus,toadopta Selfpointof view,womenwritersshouldportraymorefemalethanmalecharactersaspowerful,i.e.,asattemptingto imposetheirwill on malecharacters,andmoremalethanfemalecharacterscomplyingwiththeirwill.

Cooperationinvolvesactinginthebestinterestofanotherperson.Toadopta Selfpoint of view,oneshouldcooperatewith ingroupratherthanwithoutgroupmembers(Tajfel1978;Doise1976;Dion 1979;WyerandGordon1984).Speechmaybecooperativewhenit isaddressee-oriented,(e.g.,speech-actssuchasoffer,advice).ToadoptaSelfpointofview,oneshouldbecoopera-tive(e.g.,adviseoroffer)whenengagedwithingroupmembers.Or,oneshouldobeyingroupratherthanoutgroupmembers'impositivespeechacts.ForwomentoadoptaSelfpointofview,theyshouldportrayfemalecharacterswhocooperatewithorobeyfemaleratherthanmalecharacters.

Givenwomen'spowerlesssocialstatus,womenmayfind it difficulttosubstantiatetheirownperspective.We,therefore,expectednonfeministwomenspeakersandwriterstoadoptanOtherpointofview.Adoptingaconvergencestrategyon thepartof womenshouldresultin a speechproductsimilartomen's.Feministspeakersandwriters,however,areexpectedtosetoutfromaSelfpointofview,employingadivergencestrategy.Theresultofsuchstrategyis aspeechproductdifferentfrommen's.Sincemenmakeup thedominantgroup,theyshouldhavenodifficultysettingoutfromaSelfpointofview,evenunknowingly.

Theorizinggender 335

Whilecurrenttheoriespredicteitherdifferencebetweenwomenandmen'sspeechbehavior(thedifferencehypothesis)or similaritybetweenwomenandmen'sspeechbehavior(thesimilarityhypothesis),agrouprelationbasedtheoryhasdifferentpredictionsaltogether.It groupsnonfeministfemaleandmalespeakersonthebasisoftheirsimilarspeechproducts,andfeministfemaleandmalespeakersonthebasisoftheirsimilarstrategy- settingfromaSelfpointofview.Feministandnonfeministfemalespeakershavenothingin common:neitherspeechnorstrategy.

3. Findings

3-1 Style

Onefeatureofstylewelookedintoisintroductorypatterns.WeexaminedhowIsraelifemaleandmaleauthorsintroducefemaleandmaleprotagonists.OurdatacomefromshortstoriesbyIsraeliwomenandmenwriters,bothmodern(1965-1982) and early,pre-state(1928-1940).1Our dataon introductorypatternsin feministwriting,comefrom a contemporaryIsraelifeministmagazine,Noga(23, 1992),editedandwrittenbyfeminist~riters,cateringtoaprimarilyfemalereadership.AsanonfeministcounterparttoNoga,wechosethemostpopularwomen'smagazine,Laisha(2369,1992:5-56; 109-112).Foreachtext,wecheckedthenumberof charactersandfemalecharactersand

whethertheyreceivedadescriptionstemmingfor aSelfor anOtherpointofview.To setoutfromaSelfpointof view,femaleauthorsshouldhavegiventheirfemalecharactersaname,preferablyafullor alastname,afunctionalaswellasananchoringdescription.Theirmalecharactersshouldhavebeengivenafamilydescriptionaswellasexternal,sex-based,andanchoreddescriptions.Foranillustrationofouranalysis,considerthefollowingtranslatedexamples:

(1) a. His[anchoring]sister[family+anchored]Bilha[firstname],whoworkswithhim,anarchitect[functional]too,awoman[sex-based]divorcedthreetimes[family](Hareven1982:14).

b. Anuglyandnoisy[external]woman[sex-based](Oz1965:45).

c. A woman[sex-based]toreceivecustomers[functional].Anassistant[functional](Cahana-Carmon1966:115).

Our findingsshowthatonlymaleandfeministfemaleauthorstendtosetoutfrom a Selfpointof view(femaleauthorsdo it in 50%of thecases,male

336 RachelGiora Theorizinggender337

authorsdo it in 100%of the cases).Feministauthorsiptroducefemalecharactersapplyingsimilardescriptionsusedby mento introducemalecharacters:Bothnamethesecharacters(eitherusinglastor full names)andassignthemfunctionalandanchoringdescriptions.Similarly,bothintroduceoutgroupmembersbyexternal,sex-based,familyandanchoreddescriptions,eitherfailingtonamethemorgivingthemfirstnamesonly.Thoughmaleandfemalefeministauthorssetoutfromthesame(Self)pointofview,theirstyles,asaresult,arecompletelydifferent.

Less-feministwritersadoptanOtherpoint of view,resultingin a stylesimilar to menwriters'.Both malewritersand nonfeministfemalewriters

describewomenasoutgourpmembers(givingthemeitherfirstnamesorfailingto namethem,assigningthemexternal,sex-based,familyand anchoreddescriptions),andmenasingroupmembers.2Whileformalewritersthisstyleis inspiredbyaSelfpointofview,forfemalewritershavingthesamestyleisaresultofadoptingadifferentstrategy- settingoutformanOtherpointofview(seealsoAriel1988;ArielandGiora1992a,1998).

3.2 Narrativestructure

Anotherwayof testingthe abovehypotheses(Section2) is to investigatenarrativestructureandnarrativechange.Recallthattheassumptionis that(feminist)awareness- i.e.,settingoutfromaSelfpointofview(forwomen)- shouldinduceproductsdifferentfrommen'sandwomen'swholacksuchawareness.In Giora (1997),I lookedinto women'snarrativesdealingwithabuseoffemaleprotagonists.Accordingtotheawarenesshypothesis,feministwritersshouldportrayfemaleprotagonistswhodefendthemselves,retaliateorruin theirabusersinsteadof complyingwiththeroleofvictim.Less-feministwomenwritersshouldcopymen'snarrativesin whichthe abusedfemaleprotagonistacceptshervictimhoodanddestroysherselfinsteadofactinginselfdefenseandharmherabuser(asdothesuicidalheroinesof Flaubert's(1955)Madame Bovary,or Tolstoi's(1951)Anna Karenine).Thenarrativesstudiedwereshortstories,novels,andscriptswrittenbywomenbeforeandafterthefeministrevolutionofthe1970s.It wasassumedthatwomenwritersfollowingthefeministrevolutionshouldbemoreaffectedbyfeministawarenessthanwomenwritingin theperiodprecedingthefeministrevolution.

Findingsindeedsupportthehypothesis.Theyshowthatfollowingthe1970s,worksbyfemaleauthorsportraymoreretaliatingfemalecharactersthanearlierworks.Earlierworksaboundin self-destructiveheroines(e.g.,Thestory

of an hourandThe awakeningbyKateChopin(1899/1976),VirginiaWoolf'sThe voyageout (1915),A Room of One'sOwn (1929),Lappin and Lapinova(1939/1944:60-68),The legacy(1940/1944:107-114),Kritut (Divorce)bytheHebrewauthorDvorahBaron(1943),To room nineteenby Doris Lessing(1958),or TheBellJar bySylviaPlath(1966)).

In contrast,laterworksallowformoreviolentfemalecharacters.Consider,

forinstance,How did I getawaywithkillingoneofthebiggestlawyersin thestate?It waseasybytheAfrican-AmericanauthorAliceWalker(1971),The collectoroftreasuresbytheSouthAfricanauthorBessieHead(1977),BabyBluebyEdnaO'Brien(1978),theFrenchfilm JeanneDielmanbyChantalAkerman(1979),Cry, thePeacockby theIndianwriterAnitaDesai(1980),theDutchfilm Aquestionof silencebyMarleenGorris(1982),theteleplayThe burningbedbyRoseLeimanGoldemberg(1984,followingthebookbyFaithMcNulty),thelastdietbyEllenGilchrist(1986),FriedGreenTomatoesat theWhistleStopCafebyFannieFlagg(1987),Blue Steel(KatherineBigelow1990),and Thelma andLouise(RidleyScott1991,screenplaybyCallieKhouri),Un crimematernelbyFayWeldon(1991),The revenge,by theSingaporeanauthorCatherineLim(1993),ThegoldensnakebythePalestinianauthorHananMichailiAshrawee(1990),Womenatpoint zero,bytheEgyptianauthorNawalEl Saadawi(1975),Thefall oftheImaambythesameauthor,(ElSaadawi1988),Malice,byDanielleSteel(1996).3

In fact,bytheearly1970s,thethemeof 'gettingeven'hasbecomeamainstreamtopic in Americanmoviesaboutwomen.Abuse,particularlyrape,became"notonlyadeeddeservingofbrutalretribution,butadeedthatwomenthemselves(notcops,boyfriends,or fathers)undertookto redress"(Clover1992:16).It seemsthatasfeminismgetsastrongerhold,womentendtosetoutfromaSelfpointofviewmoreoften,whichaffectsnarrativechangefromthemale'norm'.

Consider,however,anotherangletakenbyAdrienneRich(1973:25),wheremurderdoesnotsuffice,sinceit doesnotchangetheworld:

ThephenomenologyofAnger

Fantasiesofmurder:notenough:tokill istocutofffrompainbutthekillergoesonhurting

Not enough.WhenI dreamofmeetingtheenemy,thisismydream:

To examinethe way women and men manipulatepower and cooperationin

conversation,maleand femalecharacters'speechin scriptswritten by Israelifemaleandmalescript-writersduringthelate1980swasanalyzed(seeAriel and

Giora 1992b,1998).The focus was on impositivespeechacts(Green 1975),

becauseimpositivespeechactsencodepowerand cooperation(e.g.,threaten,command, demand, request, warn, reprimand, suggest,advise, instruct,

indirectlycommand,indirectlyrequest,indirectlysuggest,mutuallycommand,

order,soothe,mutuallysuggest,mutuallyadvise,invite,offer,askfor permis-

sion, remind,beg).A commandindicatesarelativelypowerfulspeaker.Begging

indicatesthat the speakeris relativelypowerless.Giving advice or offeringsomethingto theaddresseeshowsomeconcernfor theaddressee,and arethus

indicatorsof thespeaker'scooperationwith him. Notethatpowerandcoopera-

tion arenot mutuallyexclusive.Beggingimpliesapowerlessspeaker,but not a

cooperativeone,while suggesting,which impliesa morepowerfulspeaker,is acooperativespeechact.All the impositivespeechactsin sevenIsraeli moviescriptswritten during thelate 1980swereexaminedfor manifestationsof Self

point of viewin speakers'attemptsto imposetheirwill on others.The parame-tersof powerandcooperationincluded:

a. Powerrelationsbetweenthespeakerandthe addressee.

The speakermaybesuperior,equalor inferior in statusto theaddressee.

b. Amount of talk.

Who holds thefloor and issuesmoreimpositivespeechacts?

c. Powerof speechact.

The speechactpower is a function of linguistic componentsmeasured

338 RachelGiora

whiteacetyleneripplesfrommybodyeffortlesslyreleasedperfectlytrainedonthetrueenemy

rakinghisbodydowntothethreadofexistence

burningawayhislieleavinghiminanewworld;achangedman.

3.3 Power and cooperation

Theorizinggender339------,...-----againstthecontext,with the understandingthattheverysameactcanbe

perceivedaslessor morepowerful,dependingon thecontext.The linguis-

tic componentsinclude (i) strengthof illocutionaryforce(e.g.,command

versussuggest),(ii) thepresenceof mitigators(e.g.,please)or intensifiers

(e.g.,comeon), which eitherweakenor strengthenthe speechactpower,

(iii) repetitionand/or (iv) justificationof the speechact,which imply lack

of complianceandhencespeaker'spowerlessness.

Partlyfollowing suggestionsmadeby Brown andLevinson(1987),the

contextualaspectsincluded (i) the speaker'srelativestatusvis-a-vis theaddressee(thepowerof thespeechactdependson whetherit is utteredby

a superior to an inferior or viceversa),(ii) the relativeintimacy/distance

betweenthem(acommandissuedto anintimateislesspowerfulthanwhen

the recipient is a stranger), (iii) the extentto which it is necessaryto

perform theact(extinguishinga fire,asopposedto closingthedoor), and

(iv) thedegreeof impositionrequiredin orderto complywith theimposit-

ive speechact (e.g., bringing somewater in the desert as opposed to

bringing it from thekitchen).

d. Rateof complianceby theaddressee.

Who obeyswhom by actuallyperformingtheactrequested?

e. Rateof cooperationwith addressee.

Who issuesto whom more cooperativespeechacts?

The translatedexamplesin (2) below illustrate how impositive speechacts

wereanalyzed:

(2) a. Rosyto Eli: Enoughalready[command],asshole [intensifier](GabisonandAroch 1989:27).

b. Friedato Simcha:Youknowwhat?Go liedown [suggestion].We'llcontinuesomeothertime[justification](Zvi-Riklis1984:73).

c. Tmirato Elit:TellheragainthatI'm sorry... [request]Elit, tellherI'm sorry [request+repetition](Yaron-Grunich1987:26).

Giventhatthefemalescriptwritersof thelate1980smustbe (atleastpartially)

influencedby feministideas,it waspredictedthatthis awarenessshouldaffectthewaytheir femaleandmalecharactersspeak.More specifically,giventheSelf

perspectivehypothesis,femalecharactersin femalewriters'scriptsshouldexert

powerovermalecharactersand cooperatewith femalecharacters.We collectedour datafrom Schorr andLubin (1990)who assortedscripts

written during the 1980s.4Resultssupport the hypothesisonly partly. They

340 RachelGiora

showthat,contraryto theSelfperspectivehypothesis,femalecharactersinfemalewriters'scriptsdonotexertpowerovermalecharacters.Rather,whentheycan,theyexertpoweroverequalypowerfulorweakercharacters,suchasingroupmembers(i.e.,women)andchildren.In thisrespect,theircharactersadheretothemaleorientedperspective.Thatis,bothfemaleandmalescriptwritersproducedfemalecharacterswhoobeymalecharacters,andmaleandfemalecharacterswhoexertpoweroverfemalecharacters.However,whileforfemalewritersthismeanssettingout fromanOtherpointof view,for malewritersthismeansadoptingaSelfpointofview.Here,again,adoptingdifferentstrategiesresultsin similarproducts.

However,whenit comesto cooperation,femalewritersdo adopta Self

pointofview:Theirfemalecharacterscooperatewithingroupratherthanwithoutgroupmembers.In thisrespect,theyadoptastrategysimilartothatofmalescriptwriters'whosemalecharacterstoocooperatewithmaleratherthanwithfemalecharacters(adheringtoaSelfpointofview).

WhilemalewritersalwayssetoutfromaSelfpointofview,women,beingapowerlessgroup,mayfindit difficult.Thefeministawarenessof theIsraelifemalescriptwritersofthelate1980sallowedthemtosetoutfromaSelfpointof viewonlypartly,thusproducingonlypartialchangefromthestereotypicmale'norm'.Theycreatedfemalecharacterswhodivergefromthestereotypeuponwhichwomenarecooperativeacrosstheboard,notleastwith men(astereotypemademanifestin themalewriters'scripts).

4. In conclusion

Our findings,thus,posea problemfor both thesimilarityand differencehypotheses.Thedifferencehypothesispredictsthatdifferencesshouldclusteraroundthegenderdichotomy,therebyfailingto accountfor thesimilarity-basedfindings.Thesimilarity-hypothesisfailsin thatit obscuresdifferenceinthestrategiesemployed.Our findings(andothers')arebestaccountedfor in .termsofadoptingdifferentstrategies,i.e.,differentpointsofviewin language.Themoreawarethefemalewriters,themoreextensivelytheydivergefromthe'norm',settingoutfromaSelfpointofview.ThisinterpretationofthefindingsusingSelfversusOtherpointsof viewasa classifyingcriterion,categorizesfeminists,nonfeministwomen,andmen quitedifferently.Both men andfeministsbehavealikein thattheyadopta Selfpoint of view.In contrast,nonfeministwomenadoptanOtherpointofview.

Theorizinggender 341

Our analysisdoesnot precludethepossibilitythatwomen'sandmen'slanguagemayboth differandbe similarin termsof 'features'.Rather,theproposalistoavoidconsidering'features'on theirown,withoutstudyingthesocialconstraintsthateitherallowor disallowthem.Our analysisneitherprecludesthepossibilityofevaluatingfindingsin differentways.Forexample,for womento setout fromanOtherpoint of viewmayresultin productssimilarto men's,i.e.,usinga male-biasedportrayalof women,which,inthemselvesdepictwomenasdifferentfrommen.Featuresthendon'ttellusmuch.Whatwehavetriedto showis thatthequestionof interestis whatmotivatedacertainfeature:

In therealmsof social identitiesrelativelylow rankmaybeuniversallylinkedtostancesandactsofaccommodation.Interlocutorsmayuniversal-lydisplaylowerrankthroughdisplaysofattentionandwillingnesstotakethepointofviewofahigher-rankingpartyorotherwisemeetthatparty'swantsorneeds.Byimplication,thesesamestancesandactsofaccommo-dationuniversallymarktheotherparty'shigherrank.Higherrankaswellmaybeuniversallylinkedto rightsto directothersthroughsuchactsasorderingandsummoning(Ochs1996:426).

Butsince"membersofsocietiesareagentsofcultureratherthanmerelybearersofaculturethathasbeenhandeddowntothemandencodedin grammaticalform"(ibid,p.416),languageusersmaychangetheworldbyprojectingtheirownpointofview.

Wehaveonlyto lookatthelanguageofworkingwomenin managementpositionstoseehowtheirlanguagepracticesconstitutealternativeconcep-tionsof leadershipin theworkplace(e.g.decisionmakingasconsensualversusauthoritarian);or takealookatminorityandfemalelawyerswhoseinsistenceontheuseofpersonalnarrativein legalargumentationchalleng-esstatusquoexpectations.Languagesocializationispotentin thatit isourhumanmediumforculturalcontinuityandchange"(ibid,p.431).

Thoughto adoptone'sownpointof view(atleastto a certainextent)is arationalstrategy,theoneweshouldallaspiretosubstantiate,because,amongotherthings,itwillmaketheworldabetterplaceforthosewhosepointofviewissuppressed,thisstrategymaynotbeequallyavailabletoalllanguageusers.Inthisrespect,powerlessgroupssuchaswomenandotherminoritiesdifferfromthemaledominantgroup.Theyaremoreconstrained.They,may,however,compen-satethemselvesfortheirlackofautonomybydevelopingasocialawareness.Still,eventhismaybetoodifficulttofollow.Socialpressuresmightbetoopunitive,andwomenandotherpowerlessgroupscompromiseattimesandassimilate.

342 RachelGiora Theorizinggender 343

Hebrew

References

Almog,Ruth1969 Chasdeyha-IailashelMargarita[ThenightfavorsofMargarita].TelAviv:Tarmil.1971 Be-eretzgzera[In apunishmentland].Tel-Aviv:Am-Oved.

Baron,Dvora

1943 Le-etata.[For now]. Tel-Aviv:Am-Oved.

Bichovsky,Elisheva ,1976 Mikretafelve-chamishasipurimacherim[A minorcaseandanotherfivestories].

Tel-Aviv:Tarmil.

Cahana-Carmon,Amalya1966 Bi-chfifaachat[Together],9-117.Tel-Aviv:SifriyatHapoalim.

Gabison,ShimonandJonathanAroch

1989 Shuru[Look].Unpublishedmanuscript.Hareven,Shulamit

1982 Bdidut[Loneliness].Tel-Aviv:Am-Oved.Heller,Gur

1986 Seretlaila [Nightmovie].In R. SchorrandO. Lubin (eds.),85-114.

1. The earlywomenwritersareBaron (1943),Bichovsky(l976) andPuchachevsky(1930:59-168).The modernwomenwritersare:Cahana-Carmon(1966)thefirstelevenstories,

Almog (1969, 1971:7-19)and Hareven (1982).The early men writers are: Shoffman(l942:11-170), Smilansky (l934, 1955:117-137)and Steinberg(1957:219-263).Themodernmenwritersare:Oz (l965), thefirst sevenstories,Yehoshua(l972), thefirst five

storiesandBen-Ner (1980).Theyearof publicationof theearlywritersusuallydocumentsthecollectedwritingsof theauthorratherthantheoriginaldateof publication.Thebasisforselectionwasthehistoricalfameof theauthors.Theyall appearin anthologiesthatreflectthespirit of their time.

2. This descriptiondoessomeinjusticeto earlyfemalewriterswriting during the 1930s.Their plotsandthemeswereaffectedby feministawareness.However,theirawarenesswasinsufficientto inducestylechange.

3. Notethatthefeministawarenessof theearlyfemaleauthorswasinsufficientto allowfor

a narrativechange.Recallthatthis is thecasewith theearlyIsraelifemaleauthorswho didnot challengemen'sstyle(seenote1).

4. The womenscriptwritersare:Menahemi(1987),Troppe(l986),Yaron-Grunich(l987)andZvi-Riklis (l984).The menscriptwritersare:GabisonandAroch (l989), Heller(l986)andWaxman,HasparyandLevins(l987).

Other

Laisha2369

1992 (Sept.7)A weeklywomen'smagazine.Menahemi,Ayelet

1987 Orvim [Crows].In R. SchorrandO. Lubin (eds.),115-160.Noga11

1985 (March) A bi-annualfeministmagazine.Noga23

1992 (Winter) A bi-annualfeministmagazine.OZ,Amos

1965 Artzotha-tan[Jackalcountries],9-159.Ramat-Gan:Massada.Puchachevsky,Nechama

1930 Ba-kfaru-va-avoda[In thevillageandattheworkplace].Tel-Aviv:Hedim.Schorr,RenenandLubin, Orly (eds.)

1990 Tasritim1[Scripts1].Tel-Aviv:Kineret.Shoffman,Gershon

1942 Be-teremarga'a[Beforerelaxing].Tel-Aviv:Am-Oved.Smilansky,Moshe

1934 Bnei-Arav[TheArabs].Tel-Aviv:Hitachdut-Haikarim.Smilansky,Moshe

1955 Impreda[On departing].Tel-Aviv:Tversky.Stcinberg,Ya'akov

1957 Kol kitveyYa'akovSteinberg[The collectedwritingsofYa'akovSteinberg].Tel-Aviv:Dvir.

Troppe,Zippi

1986 Tel-AvivBerlinUnpublishedmanuscript.Waxman,Daniel,HasparyShimonandLevinsR.

1987 Ha-meyuad[TheDesignate].Unpublishedmanuscript.Yaron-Grunich,Nirit

1987 YaldaGdola[BigGirl]. In R. SchorrandO. Lubin (eds.),25-58.Ychoshua,A.B.

1972 9sipurim[9stories],9-156.Ramat-Gan:HakibbutzHameuchad./.vi-Riklis,Dina

1984 Coordania.In R. SchorrandO. Lubin (eds.),59-84.

Arid, Mira

1988 "Femaleand male stereotypesin Israeli literatureand media:Evidencefrom

introductorypatterns".LanguageandCommunication8 (1):43-68.Arid, Mira andGiora,Rachel

1992a"The roleof womenin linguisticandnarrativechange:A studyof theHebrewpre-stateliterature".JournalofNarrativeandLifeHistory2:309-332.

1992b"Genderversusgroup-relationanalysisof impositivespeechacts".In LocatingPower:ProceedingsoftheSecondBerkeleyWomenandLanguageConference,April4 and5 1992,K. Hall, M. BucholtzandB. Moonwomon (eds.),Vol. I: 11-22.

Berkeley:BerkeleyLinguisticSociety.

Notes

344 RachelGiora

1998 "A Self versusOther point of view in language:Redefiningfemininity andmasculinity".InternationalJournaloftheSociologyofLanguage129:59-86.

Bergvall,VictoriaL., JanetM. Bing andAliceF.Freed1996 RethinkingLanguageandGenderResearch:TheoryandPractice.LondonandNew

York:Longman.Brigham,J.c.andBarkowitz,P.

1978 "Do 'theyall look alike'?The effectof race,sex,experienceandattitudeson theabilityto recognizefaces".JournalofAppliedSocialPsychology8:306-18.

Brown,PenelopeandLevinson,Steven

1987 Politeness.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Cameron,Deborah

1985 FeministandLinguisticTheory.London:MacmillanPress.

1996 "The language-genderinterface:Challengingco-optation".In Bergvallet a!.(eds.),31-53.

Cameron,Deborah,McAlinden,FionaandO'Leary,Kathy

1988 "Lakoff in context:The socialand linguistic functionsof tag questions".InWomenin TheirSpeechCommunities,J. CoatesandD. Cameron(eds.),74--93.NewYork:Longman.

Chance,J.E. andGoldstein,A. G.

1975 "Differentialexperienceand recognitionmemoryof faces".Journal of SocialPsychology97:243-253.

Clover,C.

1992 "Gettingeven".SightandSoundMay:16-18.Coates,Jennifer

1986 Women,Men andLanguage.London:Longman.1996 WomenTalk.Oxford:Blackwel!'

1998 LanguageandGender.Oxford:Blackwell.Crawford,Mary

1996 TalkingDifference:On GenderandLanguage.London:Sage.Crawford,Mary,andGressley,Diane

1991 "Creativity,caring and context:Women's and men's accountsof humorpreferencesandpractices".Psychologyof WomenQuarterly15:217-232.

Dion, K.L.

1979 "Intergroupconflictand intergroupcohesiveness".In TheSocialPsychologyofIntergroupRelations,W. AustinandS.Worchel(eds.),212-224.Monterey,CA.:Brooks/Cole.

Doise,W.

1976 L'articulationpsychosociologiqueetlesrelationsentregroupes.Brussels:DeBaeck.Eckert,Penelope

1998 "Genderandsociolinguisticvariation".In LanguageandGender,J. Coates(ed.),64--75.Oxford:Blackwell.

Eckert,PenelopeandMcConnell-Ginet,Sally

1992 "Communitiesof practice:Where language,gender,and power all live". InLocatingPower:ProceedingsoftheSecondBerkeleyWomenandLanguageConfer-

Theorizinggender 345

ence,April 4and51992,K. Hall, M. BucholtzandB.Moonwomon (eds.),Vo!.1:89-99.Berkeley,CA.

Freed,F.Alice

1992 "Weunderstandperfectly:A critiqueof Tannen'sviewof cross-sexcommunica-

tion". In LocatingPower:ProceedingsoftheSecondBerkeleyWomenandLanguageConference,April 4and51992,K. Hall, M. BucholtzandB.Moonwomon(eds.),Vo!.1:144-152.Berkeley:BerkeleyLinguisticSociety.

f.reed,AliceandGreenwood,Alice

1996 "Women,menandtypeoftalk:Whatmakesthedifference?"Languagein Society25:1-26.

FuchsEpstein,Cynthia

1988 DeceptiveDistinctions:Sex,Gender,and the SocialOrder.New Haven:YaleUniversitypress.

Ciles,Howard

1984 "Thedynamicsof speechaccommodation".InternationalJournaloftheSociologyofLanguage46.

Ciora, Rachel

1996 "Fe/maleinterviewingstylesin theIsraelimedia".RaskSupplement1:171-197.

1997 "Feministawarenessandnarrativechange:Suicideandmurderastransitionalstagestowardsautonomyin women'sprotestwriting". IsraelSocialScienceResearch12(1):73-92.[Reprintedunderthetitle"SelbstmordundMord in derFrauen-Protestliteratur".In Hexenjagd:WeiblicheKrimin"alitatin denMedien,P.HenschelundU. Klein (eds.),178-195.Frankfurt/M.:Suhrkamp.

Coodwin,MarjorieHarness

1980 "Directive-responsespeechsequencesin girls' and boys' task activities".InWomenandLanguagein LiteratureandSociety,S.McConnell-Ginet,R. BrokerandN. Forman(eds.),157-173.NewYork:Praeger.

(;reen,Georgia1975 "How to getpeopleto do thingswith words".In SyntaxandSemanticsVo/.3:

SpeechActs,P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.), 107-142.New-York: AcademicPress.

Creenwood,AliceandFreed,AliceF.

1992 "Womentalkingto women:The functionsof questionsin conversation".In

LocatingPower:ProceedingsoftheSecondBerkeleyWomenandLanguageConfer-ence,April 4and51992,K. Hall,M. BucholtzandB.Moonwomon(eds.),Voll.:197-206.Berkeley:BerkeleyLinguisticSociety.

Ilenley,NancyandKramarae,Cheris1988 "Miscommunication:Issuesof genderand power".Paper presentedat the

meetingsof theNationalWomen'sstudiesAssociation,Minneapolis,June.1991 "Gender,powerandmiscommunication".In MiscommunicationandProblematic

Talk,N. Coupland,H. Giles,andJ.M. Wienmann(eds.),18-43.NewburyPark,CA: Sage.

Ilibiya, Junko1988 A QuantitativeStudy of TokyoJapanese.Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation.

Universityof Pennsylvania.

346 RachelGiora

Jabeur,M.

1987 A SociolinguisticStudyin Tunisia.UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation.UniversityofReading.

James,DeborahandClarke,Sandra

1993 "Women,menandinterruption:A criticalreview".In GenderandConversation-

al Interaction,D. Tannen(ed.),231-280.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.James,DeborahandDrakich,Janice

1993 "Understandinggenderdifferencesin amountoftalk".In GenderandConversa-

tionalInteraction,D.Tannen(ed.),281-312.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.Kendall,ShariandTannen,Deborah

1996 "Genderand languagein theworkplace".In GenderandDiscourse,R. Wodak

(ed.),81-105.ThousandOaks,CA: Sage.Lakoff,Robin

1975 LanguageandWomen'sPlace.NewYork:HarperandRow.Linville,P.W. andJones,E.E.

1980 "Polarizedappraisalsof outgroupmembers".Journal ofPersonalityandSocialPsychology38:689-704.

Malpass,R.S.andKravitz,J.

1969 "Recognitionfor facesof ownandotherraces".JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology131:330-334.

Maltz, D.N. andBorker,R.A.

1982 "A cultural approachto male-femalemiscommunication".In LanguageandSocialIdentity,nGumperz(ed.), 196-216.NewYork: CambridgeUniversityPress.

Meyerhoff,Miriam1996 "Dealingwith genderidentityas a sociolinguisticvariable".In Bergvallet aL

(eds.),202-227.O'Barr,WilliamandAtkins,BowmanK.

1980 "'Women'slanguage'or 'powerlesslanguage'?"In Womenand LanguageinLiteratureandSociety,S. McConnell-Ginet, R. Brokerand N. Forman (eds.),93-110.NewYork:Praeger.

Ochs,Elinor

1996 "Linguisticresourcesfor socializinghumanity".In RethinkingLinguisticRelativi-ty, J. J. Gumperz and S.C. Levinson (eds.),407-37.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Potter,JonathanandWetherell,Margaret1987 DiscourseandSocialPsychology.London: Sage.

Rich,Adrienne

1973 DivingintoTheWreck.NewYork:W.W. Norton &Company.Rickford,John R.

1991 "Sociolinguisticvariationin CaneWalk". In EnglisharoundtheWorld:Socio-linguisticPerspective,J. Cheshire(ed.),609-16.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversi-tyPress.

Theorizinggender 347

Salami,L.Oladipo1991 "Diffusion and focusing:Phonologicalvariationandsocialnetworksin Ife Ife

Nigeria".Languagein Society20:217-45.S .'md,P.F.,BevanW. andKatz,B.

1956 "The negrostereotypeandperceptualaccentuation".Journal ofAbnormalandSocialPsychology53:78-83.

Smith-Hefner,NancyJ.1988 "Womenandpoliteness:TheJavaneseexample".Languagein Society17:535-554.

Stcphen,W.G.1985 "Intergrouprelations".In HandbookofSocialPsychology,VoL 2,G. Lindzeyand

E. Aronson (eds.),599-658.NewYork:RandomHouse.'l:lI1nen,Deborah

1984 ConversationalStyle:AnalyzingTalkamongFriends.Norwood:Ablex.1986 That'sNot What I Meant!How ConversationalStyleMakes or BreaksYour

RelationswithOthers.NewYork:Morrow.

1990 YouJustDon't Understand.NewYork:Morrow.

'I:\jrcl,Henri (ed.)1978 DifferentiationBetweenSocialGroups.London:AcadcmicPrcss.

'1:ljfcl,Henri,Sheikh,A.A. andGardner,R.e.1964 "Contentof stereotypesand the inferenceof similaritybetweenmcmb'rs of

stereotypedgroups".ActaPsychologica22:191-201.'I'rabelsi,Chedia

1991 "DequelquesaspectsdulangagedesfemmesdeTunis". InternationalJoumaloj'theSociologyofLanguage87:87-98.

'I'rocmel-Ploetz,Senta

1991 "Sellingtheapolitical".DiscourseandSociety2:489-502.lJ 'hida,Aki

J 992 "When 'difference'is 'dominance':A critiqueof the'anti-power-based'cultural

approachto sexdifferences".Languagein Society21:547-568.Wcilman,Sasha

1987 "PrenomsetorientationsnationalesenIsrael,1882-1980".AnnalesEconomies-Societe-Civilisations42(4):879-900.

W 'st,Candace

1995 "Women'scompetencein conversation".DiscourseandSociety6:105-131.W '(zel,PatriciaJ.

1988 "Are "powerless"communicationstrategiesthe Japanesenorm?" LanguageinSociety17:555-564.

Wycr,R.S.andGordon,S.E.1984 "The cognitiverepresentationof social information". In Handbookof Social

Cognition,VoL 2, R. S. Wyer and T. K. Srull (eds.), 11-149.Hillsdale,N.J.:Erlbaum.

III th PRA MATI

puhlished t'hllsfur:

AND BEYOND NEW SERIES the following titles have been

77. VANI)Jl.I~VEJ(EN, Daniel and Susumu KUBO (eds.): Essaysin SpeechAct Theory.2002.'Ill. ,'11,1,1"I~0l:\'r1 . : LiteratureasCommunication.Thefoundationsof mediatingcriticism.

,000.

Ill. A N I )j1,I\SliN, isleandThorsteinFRETHEIM (eds.):PragmaticMarkersandPropositional/Ill/lilt/I'. 000.

HO, II NCIIRER, Friedrich (ed.): EnglishMediaTexts-PastandPresent.Languageandtextual.'/mc/llre. 2000.

HI. 1)1LUZI ,Aldo, Susanne GONTHNERandFrancaORLETTI (eds.): Culturein Commu-lIil'lIlion.Analysesof interculturalsituations.2001.

11. 1(1JAUL, Esam N.: Groundingin EnglishandArabicNewsDiscourse.2000.11,\. M I~ UEZ REITER, Rosina: LinguisticPolitenessin BritainandUruguay.A contrastive

$11/1/)' of requestsandapologies.2000.11/1. A N I EI{SEN, Gisle: PragmaticMarkersandSociolinguisticVariation.A relevance-theoretic

IIppronchtothelanguageof adolescents.2001.11:,.COLI.I NS, Daniel E.: ReanimatedVoices.Speechreportingin a historical-pragmatic

/)(r$/Jl'cIJJle. 2001.H(,. IIIANTI D D, EUy: EvidentialsandRelevance.2001.11'1.M USll1 N, llana: EvidentialityandEpistemologicalStance.Narrativeretelling.2001.HH. IIA YRAKTAROGLU, Arm and Maria SIFIANOU (eds.): LinguisticPolitenessAcross

1Il1ll1ldnries.Thecaseof GreekandTurkish.2001.11I). IT A I RA, Hiroko: ConversationalDominanceandGender.A studyof]apanesespeakers

ill flrsl andsecondlanguagecontexts.2001.l)(). n:N I':SEl,lstvan and Robert M. HARNISH (eds.): PerspectivesonSemantics,Pragmatics,

II/lr!1 iscourse.A Festschriftfor FerencKiefer.2001.I) I. (;I{ )SS, loan: Speakingin OtherVoices.An ethnographyofWalloonpuppettheaters.2001.I) (:AR Nm{, Rod: WhenListenersTalk.Responsetokensand listenerstance.2001.I) I. IIAI\ N, Beuina and Helga KOTTHOFF (eds.): Genderin Interaction.Perspectiveson

r'llIillinil)' andmasculinityin ethnographyanddiscourse.20021)11. M') LVENNY, Paul (ed.): TalkingGenderandSexuality.n.y.p.')h. I1IT/',MAURICE, Susan M.: TheFamiliarLetterin Early ModernEnglish.A pragmatic

1//1/lrllOch.n.y.p.l}(" IIA VERKATE, Henk: TheSyntax,SemanticsandPragmaticsof SpanishMood.n.y.p.'1'1,MAY NARD, Senko K.: LinguisticEmotivity.Centralityof place,the topic-comment

t/IIIIII/li , cmdanideologyofPathosinJapanesediscourse.n.y.p.1111.I >USZAK, Anna (ed.): Us and Others.Socialidentitiesacrosslanguages,discoursesand

1'/1/1/11' s. n.y.p.

I)i), }A,'ZCZ LT, K.M. and Ken TURNER (eds.): Meaning ThroughLanguageContrast.\101/1111' I. n.y.p.

I tlO, IA,'I. 'Z L'T', K.M. and Ken TURNER (eds.): MeaningThroughLanguageContrast.\lU/llllle2, n.y.p.

III I, l,lJKli, Kan rKwongandTheodossia-SoulaPAVLIDOU(eds.): TelephoneCalls.Unityand"11I1'I'"il)'ill conversationalstructureacrosslanguagesandcultures.n.y.p.

10I, I ,Jl.A11(;I{EN, John: Degreesof Explicitness.Informationstructureand thepackagingofIIlIl,qlll'il/lIsl/bieclsandobjects.n.y.p.

10I, i111:I'ZJl.I(,A 11 itaand Christiane MEIERKORD (eds.): RethinkingSequentiality.Linguistics11/1'1'1.; 1'tI1I11I'I'SI/Iionalinteraction.n.y.p.

111,1,III/,II,(:111N ;, Kat:c: ',ender,PolitenessandPragmaticParticlesin French.n.y.p.

\ 111111~111111III NiJllhllNh 1