woman, language and identity

7/27/2019 Woman, Language and Identity

1/29

# Published by Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1997108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden MA 02148, USA.

Women, language and identity1

Janet Holmes

Victoria University of Wellington

ABSTRACT

This paper explores the ways in which women and men use language to markgender boundaries, and to convey femininity and masculinity in the construc-

tion of a gendered identity. The first section of the paper examines evidence that

language serves as a gender identity marker not only in the particular

phonological variants used more by women than by men, but also in the

wider stylistic range evident in women's discourse in some communities. The

gender distribution and social meanings associated with particular pragmatic

particles and interactional devices provide another indication of the ways in

which women and men construct and express femininity and masculinity in

interaction. The final section analyses the construction of stereotypical genderidentities through conversational interaction, firstly by means of a narrative

and secondly through the carefully crafted dialogue of an advertisement. The

paper demonstrates the complementary nature of macro-level quantitative

studies and qualitative ethnographic analysis in gender research.

KEYWORDS: Gender, social dialect, discourse analysis, stereotypes,

narrative

INTRODUCTION

Linguistic behaviour expresses complex social meanings. Through language we

assert or cede control, we indicate the different social groups with which we

identify, the social roles we embrace, and the sometimes conflicting values we

espouse. As many researchers have demonstrated in their recent work,

language is used to symbolise our different social identities, and in any

particular interaction we draw on its symbolic power to construct a particular

identity or identities, and to express our conformity with or rejection of

mainstream norms and values (e.g. Cameron 1995, Coupland and Coupland

1995, Coupland, Coupland and Giles 1991, Crawford 1995, Eckert and

McConnell-Ginet 1995).

Language and gender research has progressed quite dramatically over the last

thirty years from a predominantly essentialist paradigm which categorised

speakers primarily according to their biological sex, and used mainly quantitative

Journal of Sociolinguistics 1/2, 1997: 195223


2/29

methods, through a period which recognised the significance of cultural

categories such as gender, and socio-psychological dimensions such as feminine

and masculine, when more qualitative approaches have predominated. In recent

research a more dynamic social constructionist approach offers the possibility of

combining the benefits of ethnographic and survey approaches.As Mary Crawford (1995: 172ff) argues, there is no `best' method for gender

and language research; a judicious, reflexive, critical and self-questioning use of

a range of approaches is needed (see also Fairclough 1989, Potter and Wetherell

1987, van Dijk 1985). Constructing a gendered identity in interaction is an

active, on-going creative process, but it is a process which draws on the

participants' familiarity with the significance of particular choices. Individuals

use language in face-to-face interaction to express, create, challenge and

subvert a range of social meanings (Cameron 1995, Eckert and McConnell-Ginet 1995), but they draw on established sociolinguistic norms in doing so.

Just as quantification depends on detailed preliminary analysis (as well as native

speakers' intuitions) in establishing valid units and categories of analysis

(Schegloff 1993), so qualitative ethnographic analysis cannot account for

individuals' linguistic choices in a social vacuum patterns are rarely evident

at the micro-level.

In what follows, I first discuss the significance of sex as a sociolinguistic

category in social dialect research, examining the evidence that, for somevariables in some communities, it is a more fundamental and salient social

category than social class. The second section explores the relationship between

gender and the use of particular pragmatic particles and interactional devices,

demonstrating the importance of attention to the social meaning of these items

in accounting for their interpretation as expressions of femininity and mascu-

linity. The final section focuses on two particular examples of interaction,

illustrating how individuals construct a gendered identity in particular social

contexts. The first example comprises a narrative. Telling stories is one veryexplicit means of constructing a particular social identity. The analysis illus-

trates how a very conventional gender identity can be constructed through a

narrative describing a mundane family outing. The second example examines a

more complex instance of impression management, showing how a carefully

crafted dialogue constructs a more varied range of gender identities, and the

ways in which these draw on societal norms and expectations for their effect.

GENDER IN SOCIAL DIALECTOLOGY

It is useful to begin with the question, `has gender proved a useful category in

social dialect research?' Or has it simply been a fashionable one which has

concealed more sociolinguistically significant and relevant social categories? To

what extent has survey research isolated linguistic features which are

distinctive signals of female identity, as opposed to features of more formal

HOLMES196

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1997


3/29

styles, for example, or particular social classes? Are there instances where the

choice of particular variants genuinely functions as a signal of female identity?

There has been some debate as to whether it is appropriate to use biological

sex as a pragmatic way to operationalise the socio-cultural category `gender' in

sociolinguistic research (e.g. Crawford 1995, Eckert 1989, Labov 1990).Nevertheless, the vast majority of large scale quantitative surveys continue to

treat this variable as a dichotomy for the purposes of correlation with linguistic

variables. So, initially at least, I will discuss `gender' identity in social dialect

research, while recognising the crudeness with which the concept is measured

in most surveys. I do not intend here to summarise thirty years of social dialect

research. Rather, I will make just two points which indicate the directions in

which we might look, and the findings we must take into account in searching

for an answer to questions about the significance of gender as a sociolinguisticvariable:

i(i) gender differentiation is a recurrent robust finding in social dialect surveys;

(ii) stylistic variability is often greater in women's speech than men's.

Firstly, it is clear that in all sociolinguistic surveys to date there are some

linguistic variables which are realised significantly differently by women and

men.2 The stable (ING) variable, for instance, has been found to differentiate

female and male speech in every social dialect survey of an English-speakingcommunity which has been undertaken. In our Wellington Social Dialect

Survey (Holmes, Bell and Boyce 1991) in New Zealand, the men used almost

twice as many instances of the vernacular [In] pronunciation as the women

(46% vs 24%). Similar examples could be provided for many different variables

in a range of communities.

Initially, such gender variation was often explained in terms of class: it was

suggested that women were using forms typical of a higher social class.

However, this treatment of class as fundamental was challenged by femalesociolinguists (e.g. Cameron and Coates 1984, Horvath 1985). Barbara

Horvath (1985), Jennifer Coates (1993) and Lesley Milroy (1992) noted that

for a number of variables (mainly involving consonants), gender was a

demonstrably more salient and fundamental category than social class. The

dramatic contrast between male and female levels of glottalization on Tyneside

provides an illustration: glottalization of (p) is near-categorical for both working

class (99.5%) and middle class (96.5%) men, while women glottalise (p) much

less often, with a clear social class contrast (60% for working class vs 27% for

middle class). Milroy comments that glottalization `is better described as a male

norm than a working class norm' (1992: 167). In Tunis, Michel Jabeur (1987,

cited in Milroy 1992: 171) provides further examples where linguistic varia-

bility correlates with women's and men's usage, not with educational or

occupational social dimensions. And Miriam Meyerhoff (1996a) describes an

intriguing example from Vanuatu, where the salience of gender boundaries was

evident in the tendency for women, but not men, to use the inclusive yumi

WOMEN, LANGUAGE AND IDENTITY 197



4/29

pronoun in addressing her, indicating that at times her gender was more salient

than her status as outsider. Moreover, in our Wellington survey, neither class

nor ethnicity produced such significant differences as gender for the stable (ING)

variable.3

The (ING) variable also illustrates my second point. In many speechcommunities, women's linguistic behaviour is remarkably style-sensitive:

women consistently style-shift more than men. This has been evident from

the earliest surveys and can be clearly illustrated by Peter Trudgill's (1972)

Norwich data. The most dramatic variation in Trudgill's data is that between

the casual style (17% [I] ) and more formal styles [97%100% [I]) of working

class women, an 80% shift from the vernacular to the standard variant.

Similar examples can be provided from many social dialect surveys (e.g.

Labov 1966, Milroy 1980, Nichols 1983). Reviewing a range of data, J. K.Chambers summarises:

The empirical evidence clearly shows women as much more able performers than men

in the whole spectrum of sociolinguistic situations . . . they command a wider range of

linguistic variants . . . they have the linguistic flexibility to alter their speech as social

circumstances warrant. (Chambers 1992: 199)

While Chambers' formulation could be regarded as polemical, the research he

cites provides convincing evidence that in western urban contexts women tendto use a wider range of linguistic variants than men, and that their usage varies

according to identifiable contextual factors.

There is, moreover, supportive evidence from other cultural groups. Patricia

Nichols (1983) documents the wider stylistic range of working class Black

women in South Carolina, reflecting their social networks and the variety of

people they encounter in their daily interactions. Sachiko Ide (1982) demon-

strates that Japanese women use a wider and more complex range of honorifics

than men, and notes that they are very responsive to contextual factors (see alsoIde 1991, Ide et al. 1986). Genevieve Escure (1991) comments on the linguistic

repertoire of Belize women, which encompasses a wider range of the creole

continuum than that of Belize men. So, while this generalisation does not

describe all linguistic variables, and is subject to some caveats,4 it does

summarise patterns across a number of different communities.

Once again, initial interpretations tended to imply that this extreme style-

shifting was evidence of women's over-weening social ambition: it was

suggested that women were using more standard forms in contexts where

they had the opportunity to pay attention to their speech (e.g. reading aloud), in

order to claim higher status than they were entitled to. More recent explana-

tions, however, appeal to the linguistic market-place, suggesting that women's

stylistic flexibility is rather a reflection of the wide range of social identities they

are required to control.5 Penelope Eckert notes, for example, that gender

differences in variation are `attributable to social forces that attach to women

by virtue of their place in the economy' (1989: 255). Language is one form of

HOLMES198



5/29

symbolic capital, and authority in the area of linguistic usage is one of the

avenues available to women to assert their influence in society. Women are

often the family brokers in interaction with outsiders: it is more often women

than men who interact with others in shops and neighbourhood interactions, as

well as in communications with schools, and between institutional bureau-cracies and the family (see Chambers 1992, Moonwomon 1989, Tannen

1990). Women's social activities and jobs often involve them in interaction

with a wider range of social contacts than men's (e.g. Escure 1991, Milroy

1980, Nichols 1983). In such contexts, in order to be effective in their

interactions, they are responsive to a variety of pressures, and they con-

sequently tend to accommodate to the speech of others (e.g. Bell 1984;

Coupland 1980; Giles, Coupland and Coupland 1991).6 Alternatively, in

some communities, language may be one of the few areas where women arepermitted to be creative and where they perceive opportunities to subvert and

challenge societal norms (see Weedon 1987).

So the wide variation observed in the speech behaviour of many women can

be interpreted as a response to the often conflicting demands of their various

roles (Moonwomon 1989: 244). In other words, an explanation which takes

account of the function of language as a means of expressing social identity

provides a plausible account of this particular contrast between women's and

men's behaviour. From this perspective, women's identity is signalled not somuch by the choice of particular linguistic variants which contrast with those

preferred by men, but rather by the ways in which women are often required to

use language to construct a much wider range of social identities and express a

wider range of social roles than men.

PRAGMATIC AND INTERACTIONAL DEVICES

When we turn from the quantification of mainly phonological and morpho-

logical variables to a consideration of pragmatic particles and interactional

variables, the significance of particular choices as expressions of gender identity

becomes even more apparent.

The quantification of discourse variables, using the variationist approach

which was first developed for the analysis of phonological variables, has proved

much more productive than sceptics initially predicted. At an early stage,

Elizabeth Dines (1980) provided evidence of the relevance of social class in

Australia to the distribution of set marking tags such as or something, and that

((sort of) stuff). Michael Huspek (1989) identified social class patterns in the

United States in the distribution of you know and I think. Sylvie Dubois and

Barbara Horvath (1992) used a variationist approach to demonstrate the

relationship between the form of an interviewer's question and the interviewee's

response in their Sydney data. And in New Zealand, Meyerhoff's (1994)

analysis revealed a high correlation between Maori ethnicity and the frequency




6/29

of occurrence of the informal question tag eh, used in utterances such as really

neat eh and pretty dumb eh.

More recently Maria Stubbe and Janet Holmes (1995) analysed a range of

pragmatic particles in conversations and interviews involving 53 New

Zealanders from the Wellington Corpus of Spoken New Zealand English(WCSNZE). The results indicated that style and class were particularly signi-

ficant social factors influencing the range and distribution of pragmatic

particles. The overall frequency of pragmatic devices tended to increase as the

formality of speech decreased: just over 50% more of the seven pragmatic

devices analysed occurred in informal conversation than in interview style

(Stubbe and Holmes 1995: 77). And the particles you know and eh were much

more typical of conversational contexts and working class speech, while I think

was more frequent in formal contexts and middle class speech (see also Holmes1985).

Pragmatic particles attracted early attention in language and gender research

owing to the extensive impact of Robin Lakoff's Language and Women's Place,

which identified items such as you know, sort of and I think as `hedges' and as

instances of `women's language' forms. The flurry of quantificational research

which followed this claim has been well documented, and its methodological

weaknesses have been thoroughly discussed (e.g. Cameron et al. 1989,

Crawford 1995, Graddol and Swann 1989, Holmes 1982, 1984a, 1995,Preisler 1986). This early research took no account of factors crucial to the

validity of variationist analysis, such as the relevance of the total envelope of

variability in counting forms (see Lavandera 1978, Milroy 1987, Schegloff

1993); and women's and men's behaviour was frequently compared without

controlling for factors such as opportunities to contribute to the discourse. It

was also characterised by variable attention to the influence of social factors

such as the social context in which the data was gathered (e.g. over-general-

ising results from very formal or experimental contexts), or the discourse styleinvolved (e.g. ignoring the difference between the casual conversation of peers

and transactional interactions).7

The variable functions of pragmatic devices emerged as another factor

relevant to the analysis of gender differences. Pragmatic particles differ crucially

from phonological variables in that they express inherent social meaning: they

`can be analysed coherently in semantic terms' (Milroy 1992: 173). So, while

simple quantification was appropriate for phonological variants, it often

concealed important meaningful distinctions when applied to pragmaticdevices. Analyses of tag questions, for instance, identified at least four contrast-

ing functions:

II(i) facilitative, inviting participation (e.g. you've just arrived in New Zealand

have you?);8

I(ii) softening, attenuating a criticism or directive (e.g. that was a bit dumb

wasn't it);

HOLMES200



7/29

(iii) epistemic modal, expressing uncertainty or tentativeness (e.g. his plane

arrives at six doesn't it?); and

(iv) challenging, expressing aggression (e.g. well it's obvious i'n'it) (see Cameron

et al. 1989, Holmes 1982, 1986, 1995, Sollitt-Morris, 1997).

Pragmatic particles such as I think and you know can express either tent-

ativeness or conviction, functioning either as hedges or as boosters (Bonnano

1995; Holmes 1985, 1986), a crucial distinction in the light of the claims made

about `feminine' speech in gender research. And pragmatic tags, such as

American OK and New Zealand eh, serve a wide variety of functions in

interaction (Meyerhoff 1992).

The insight that the same forms could serve a range of functions, and in so

doing express very different social meanings, has recently been extended to

studies of other features of women's and men's interaction. Initially studies

simply quantified forms such as minimal responses (mm, yeah) and interrup-

tions, without taking account of their functional complexity (e.g. Fishman

1983, Hirschman 1974, Leet-Pellegrini 1980, Strodtbeck and Mann 1956).

More recent research examines the function of interactional feedback. Analysis

has been extended to a larger and more open-ended set of short utterances,

often together with vocalisations such as laughter (e.g. Reid 1995, Stenstrom

1994). Supportive positive feedback, expressing agreement, has been distin-

guished from neutral or non-committal responses (e.g. Pilkington 1994, Stubbe

forthcoming). The results confirm earlier patterns identifying women's con-

versational contributions as more actively supportive than men's. Analysing

conversations from a sample in the WCSNZE, for instance, Stubbe (forthcoming)

reports: `There is a clear tendency for the men to respond more neutrally and

minimally, while the women's feedback includes a greater proportion of

responses which are both overtly supportive and more extended and contra-

puntal in nature.'

CONSTRUCTING GENDER IDENTITY IN LANGUAGE

Interpreting linguistic forms

The analysis of the function of pragmatic and interactive particles highlights a

number of important points. Firstly, counting forms is demonstrably un-

illuminating if one is interested in the contribution of pragmatic particles to

the construction of a particular gender identity. An aggressive, challenging tag

question is self-evidently dramatically different in its effect from a facilitative,

supportive tag.

Secondly, any analysis must be sensitive to the potential complexity entailed

by the multi-functional nature of linguistic forms (Brown 1980, Holmes 1984a,

Ochs 1992). Particular forms such as tags and high rising terminal intonation

contours not only serve a variety of pragmatic functions, they also express a

range of social meanings, including gender identity. Elinor Ochs characterises




8/29

this as a `constitutive relation between language and gender': hence, forms such

as tag questions `index social meanings (e.g. stances, social acts, social

activities), which in turn help to constitute gender meanings' (1992: 340).

She notes that many features associated with one gender or the other `have as

their core social meaning a particular affective stance' (1992: 341). So, forexample, certain features associated in Japanese with women's speech `convey

an affect of gentle intensity' which is part of the preferred image of Japanese

women and motivates their differential use by women and men. Such features

index `femininity'. Similarly certain linguistic features index particular social

acts: the imperative, for instance in some contexts directly `indexes' ordering,

which in many cultures is associated with speaking like a male or with

`masculinity' (Ochs 1992: 341).

Recent research into the relationship between language and gender hasincreasingly adopted a social constructionist framework, and a more qualita-

tive, ethnographic methodology. Language is viewed as the site of the cultural

production of gender identity: subjectivity is discursively constituted (Butler

1990, Weedon 1987). In other words, each person's subjectivity is constructed

and gendered within the social, economic and political discourse to which they

are exposed (Weedon 1987: 21). Using this approach, people operate within

subject positions, positions created and sustained by the use of language.

Speakers are regarded as constantly `doing gender', and the different ways inwhich women and men behave are accounted for by the gendered social

contexts in which they operate. This approach examines `what speakers

``mean'' in their situated utterances' (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet 1992:

474), and `how gender is constructed in social practice' (1992: 472).

Clearly, identifying the function of forms in context is crucial from a social

constructionist point of view: someone using a facilitative tag, or supportively

overlapping another's speech, or providing positive agreeing verbal feedback, is

doing gender very differently from someone using a challenging tag, disrup-tively interrupting, and using neutral or non-committal feedback.

Deconstructing social categories

A similar point can be made about social categories: over-simplistic analysis

distorts the complex reality. As mentioned above, social dialect research has

become increasingly sophisticated in its treatment of social class and ethnicity,

recognising, for example, `the complex relation between the categories used in

the socioeconomic classification of speakers and the social practice that under-

lies these categories' (Eckert 1989: 246). But the same level of sophistication

has not been evident in the operationalisation of `sex' as a sociolinguistic

variable. Because it is usually easy to classify people by sex, this biological

category has generally been substituted for the cultural category `gender',

which is the appropriate focus of the sociolinguist's attention.

Reflection on the complexity of the construction of the category of `gender' in

HOLMES202



9/29

any community also leads in the direction of ethnographic qualitative research.

Using `gender' rather than `sex' as a basic variable emphasises the fact that a

person's gender is socially constructed from the roles, norms and expectations of

the community in which they participate. Simple binary classification is no

longer possible; gender is a complex continuum which interacts with othersocial dimensions such as social status, ethnicity, age and power. A more

satisfactory way of studying the linguistic realisations of gender thus involves

examining the way individuals express or construct their gender identities in

specific interactions in particular social contexts.

Constructing social meaning from linguistic forms

As Ochs notes, certain usages express particular social meanings which becomeassociated with `feminine' or `masculine' styles. In western culture, those with

power may exercise the right to speak for longer in contexts such as meetings,

they may interrupt others, use joking insults as silencing devices, or alter-

natively they may explicitly require others to contribute (cf Sollitt-Morris 1997).

Because positions of power are in general more often held by men, these

strategies tend to be encoded as `masculine', and when they are used by men in

particular interactions they contribute to the construction of normative

masculinity.9

By contrast powerless people tend to be tentative and cautious in expressing

their views. As Robin Lakoff (1975, 1990) noted, those who are òut of power'

must be polite; they must avoid rocking the boat. Because, as a group, women

rather than men are more often excluded from power, social meanings such as

`tentative', `conforming to mainstream values', `conservative', `supportive',

`polite' tend in many cultures to be associated with or cluster with

`feminine'. As Eckert says: `Femininity is a culturally defined form of mitigation

or denial of power, whereas masculinity is the affirmation of power' (1989:257).

In Britain, Milroy (1992: 177) points to evidence that status is another

potentially relevant dimension: there is à pervasive stereotypical belief that

the speech of high status men is effeminate'. In this case, presumably, òut-of-

power' drops from the cluster. Eckert (1989) makes the same point in the

context of a more extensive discussion of the relationship between power and

gender. She notes that women's and men's speech diverges most among the

working classes, `where power is the scarcest . . . where women's access to

power is the greatest threat to men' (1989: 256). But, while working class

men eschew feminine behaviour of any kind, features of feminine behaviour

àppear increasingly in male style as one moves up the socioeconomic

hierarchy, until in the upper class, what is called effeminacy may be seen

as the conscientious rejection of physical power by those who exercise real

global power . . . by appropriating the physical power of others' (1989:

257).10




10/29

A social constructionist approach explores how people use linguistic forms

associated with particular social groups, such as women and men, and

linguistic devices and strategies associated with or symbolising particular

social dimensions or stereotypes, such as feminine or masculine behaviours

gendered behaviour patterns in particular interactions. Using a moreethnographic qualitative method of analysis, this approach explores how

people use language to create, construct and reinforce particular social

identities. It examines how women and men `negotiate the norms, behaviours,

discourses, that define masculinity and femininity for a particular community at

a particular point in history' (Cameron 1995: 43).

DOING GENDER IDENTITY

In this final section, I use two conversational excerpts to illustrate the ways in

which people construct gendered identities in everyday conversational inter-

action. Both examples involve a narrative. Telling a story is one means of

presenting oneself (and others) as appropriately feminine or masculine in terms

of current societal ideology. There is a great deal of research on the use of

narrative in the presentation of self both from a psychological perspective (e.g.

Bruner 1987, 1990, 1991, Linde 1993) and from a more socio-cultural point of

view (e.g. Bruner 1990, Chafe 1994). Following a very valuable review of thecharacteristics of different approaches, Deborah Schiffrin succinctly sum-

marises:

The form of our stories (their textual structure), the content of our stories (what we tell

about), and our story-telling behaviour (how we tell our stories) are all sensitive

indices not just of our personal selves, but also of our social and cultural identities.

(1996: 170)

In her own very detailed and illuminating analysis of the contents, linguistic

structures and pragmatic meanings expressed in two stories told by women in

an interview, Schiffrin demonstrates how the particular stories `display their

teller's sense of who they are' (1996: 191). Given the scope of what is being

attempted in this paper, the analysis below is necessarily selective and less

detailed, but it has a similar aim.

An analysis of 96 naturally occurring stories from the WCSNZE showed that

stories were often used by conversationalists to construct or reinforce a

particular kind of gendered identity for the narrator. In this New Zealand

corpus, the gender identity constructed was typically a rather `conservative' one(i.e. an identity conforming to the society's beliefs about the way women and

men should behave), confirming Chris Weedon's point that there is over-

whelming societal pressure to accept particular gendered constructions:

As children we learn what girls and boys should be and, later, women and men. These

subject positions ways of being an individual and the values inherent in them may

not all be compatible and we will learn that we can choose between them. As women

HOLMES204



11/29

we have a range of possibilities. In theory almost every walk of life is open to us, but all

the possibilities which we share with men involve accepting, negotiating or rejecting

what is constantly being offered to us as our primary role that of wife and mother.

(1987: 3)

The fact that individuals are continually defining and redefining themselves in

interaction offers possibilities for change and development, but there is

undoubted pressure to accept the conservative or current societally accepted

definition of normal and appropriate behaviour, the norm to which people must

relate. In the interactions analysed below, the protagonists predominantly

present themselves as conforming to society's definitions of appropriate mascu-

line and feminine behaviour for individuals involved in the social roles being

described or enacted. Both excerpts, then, construct rather conservative

gendered identities; the first, Helen's story, portrays her, however, as not justaccepting but even embracing the primary role of wife and mother to which

Weedon refers.

Doing female identity

Excerpt 1 occurs in a conversation between two close friends, Helen and Joan,

both middle-aged Pakeha11 women pursuing well-paid professional careers.

Helen's story, `We tried to go to the pool today', is embedded within a long,complex response to a question from Joan about the state of health of Helen's

father, Jason. The specific story which is the focus of this discussion is an

account of Helen's attempt to take herself and her children to the swimming

pool (Excerpt 1).

Excerpt 1: `We tried to go to the pool today'

H: and so today we wen- we tried to go to the pool today I tri- I wanted to go to aqua

fitness at eleven

J: oh good on you

H: well I wanted to go to aqua fitness at eleven so we gathered up Susie and

everybody and their togs and we tear over there just- get there about three

minutes before the class is supposed to start and the pool is all closed for some

other spe- you know they're not /no\

J: /oh a\

H: aqua- aqua fitness is cancelled someJ: /sport thing\

H. /sporting thing\

J: oh

H: and I th- so I thought oh god I thought you know after we'd s- go- spent half an

hour getting there so then I said let's go to Freyberg so then we get I don't want to

go to- Annie didn't want to go to Freyberg and the other two DID and you know

w- so I said we're going to Freyberg we've got this far




12/29

/so we\ get round to Freyberg it's lane

J: /right\

H: swimming only which is no good for the little kids [tut] so I thought + oh god this

really isn't working out at all and actually it was rather sort of /muggy an hot to

be driving round Wellington with a car full of children\J: /[laughs] I mean (only car) I know\

H: so then /I said oh well\ we'll go and we'll

J: /you've got to (deal )\

H: go to um the Karori pool what the hell we'll go to the Karori pool

J: mm mm

H: and we'll just swim there wh- well we could have done that in the first place

except that I couldn't have done my class and /the\ w- and it's

J: /no\

H: not quite as w- good as those bigger pools so on the way to the Karori pool westopped in and saw Jason and i- and Annie was saying I don't want to go in will

you drop me home and I said why don't you stay with Jason /and\ make

J: /mm\

H: him some lunch

J: mm

H: so we went in and visited him and I said Annie'll stay with you and make you

some lunch and she gets on quite- and she chats away with Jason and they have

quite a nice-

J: /she's very good with\ adults isn't she

H: /yes she is\ she's- well she's good with him too I don't know they sort of get along

/nicely\ and um better

J: /mm\

H: than the other two do really /you know\

J: /mm\

H: she sort of somehow gets it right with him and he seems to make an effort too so

she stayed with him for an hour we went- the other two and I went and swam at

the pool Andrea did SEVEN lengthsJ: goodness me

H: with a little breaks in between but she's never swum a length of that pool before

/and she just suddenly discovered\

J: /(that's so good)\

H: she could swim a length [laughs] and got so keen she didn't want to stop she said

I'll just do another one and then /I'll do another one so that\

J: /that's terrific\

H: was (fun so) she looked like a [laughs] s- Liz was there with her friend John and he

said /she\ looked like a goldfish you [laughs]J: /mm\

H: /know s- (there's) a little head ( )\

J: /[laughs]\ (he'd find out when we-) yeah

H: a- a (rolling) in the water

J: /[laughs] oh\

H: /[laughs]\ and legs sort of sagging in the water o- and breaststroking away

J: /good on her\

HOLMES206



13/29

H: /you know\ but she was obviously really sort of getting a kick out of the

achievements

J: /that's so good\

H: /so Annie stayed there\ and made Jason some lunch and then we went back

afterwards so I mean he's sort of all right he's pottering around but he's he'swalking with a stick

Transcription conventions

YES Capitals indicate emphatic stress

[laughs] Paralinguistic features in square brackets

+ Pause of up to one second

(4) Length of longer pause in seconds

. . ./. . .\. . . Simultaneous speech

. . ./. . .\. . .

(hello) Transcriber's best guess at an unclear utterance

? Rising or question intonation

- Incomplete or cut-off utterance

The `pool' story is a classic narrative, recapitulating past experience using a

sequence of temporally ordered clauses to do so (Labov 1972: 359360). Its

structure is in some respects reminiscent of that of a fairy story such as

Goldilocks and the Three Bears: the protagonist makes three attempts to achieve

her goal (taking her children for a swim) and succeeds only on the third

attempt.

A superficial look at this story might leave one wondering what was its

point. The most important `point' is far from explicit: the evaluative compo-

nent is deeply embedded in the context within which the story is told. At one

level, it is simply intended to bring Joan up-to-date on what Helen has been

doing: it is a story about a visit to the swimming pool with her children. At

another level it is one component in a complex answer to Joan's enquiry about

Jason's health. At yet another level (the level on which I am focusing), the

story constructs Helen's identity as a `good' daughter and a `good' mother.

Both these identities are very important to her. Of three daughters, she is the

only one who lives near her father; and she is a solo parent. Though in many

respects her life does not conform to the rather conservative norms of New

Zealand society, in these two areas, she clearly strives to do so. She takes her

roles as `daughter' and `mother' very seriously, and likes others to recognise

and appreciate the extent to which she meets society's prescriptions in these

areas. This message is conveyed in the `pool' story, but it is not alwaysconveyed explicitly. I will give just a few examples (a fuller analysis is provided

in Holmes forthcoming). Helen first presents herself as a good mother,

concerned for her children's comfort and well-being. This is most obvious in

the following three utterances:

so we gathered up Susie and everybody and their togs . . .

it's lane swimming only which is no good for the little kids . . .




14/29

and actually it was rather sort of muggy and hot to be driving round Wellington with a

car full of children . . .

While the message is easily inferred from the latter two utterances, it is not quite

so clear from the first. In fact, this utterance indicates Helen's willingness to take

an extra child Susie on this outing, thus providing a playmate for her youngest

child, Andrea, another indication of her thoughtful mothering.

Helen also constructs her identity as a good daughter. Here the most

obviously relevant sections of the story are:

so on the way to the Karori pool we stopped in and saw Jason . . .

and I said why don't you stay with Jason and make him some lunch

so we went in and visited him

and I said Annie'll stay with you and make you some lunch

and she gets on quite- and she chats away with Jason . . .

so she stayed with him for an hour . . .

so Annie stayed there and made Jason some lunch

and then we went back afterwards . . .

These utterances represent Helen as looking after her father's needs: he is

provided with the companionship of his grand-daughter, with whom we are

told he gets on well, and also with his lunch. And, incidentally, we see here the

ways in which young girls are socialised and taught that their proper role is to

look after men.

More subtly, Helen constructs her identity as good mother and daughter in

the account she provides of the way she `manages' Annie, and in the analysis

she presents of Annie's relationship with Jason. Annie is a somewhat difficult

teenager, as Joan knows, and as indicated earlier in this story by her reluctance

to cooperate with Helen's attempts to rescue their outing:

so then we get `I don't want to go to' Annie didn't want to go to Freyberg . . .

And later:

and Annie was saying `I don't want to go in will you drop me home'

Helen presents herself skilfully persuading her daughter to look after her grand-

father's needs, and, at the same time, she constructs a much more positive

identity both for her difficult daughter and for her rather grouchy father:

and she gets on quite- and she chats away with Jason

and they have quite a nice

. . . well she's good with him too

I don't know they sort of get along nicely

and um better than the other two do really you know

she sort of somehow gets it right with him

and he seems to make an effort too

Similarly, Helen constructs the identity of her youngest daughter Andrea as a

small, sweet, endearing little girl by her use of a range of linguistic devices,

HOLMES208



15/29

including the effective use of diminutives and attenuators such as quite (sweet),

just and little, the pragmatic particles sort of and you know, the adverb particle

away in the phrase breast-stroking away, and the repetition of phrases and

syntactic patterns (I'll just do another one and then I'll do another one). These

components all contribute to Helen's affectionate picture of her little girlswimming gamely away, as does the paralinguistic laughter, and the attribution

to an observer of a comment that emphasises how sweet and amusing Andrea's

behaviour is.

Though there are hints of an alternative discourse which on other occasions

Helen may choose to voice more extensively and explicitly (see Holmes forth-

coming), and some evidence of the relative nature of the individual's identity, of

reflexivity and slippage (Weedon 1987: 106), overall, this particular narrative

resolves into Helen's construction of herself as a normatively good mother anddaughter, reinforced by the construction of conservative gender identities for

her two daughters.

The expression of gender identity in this text is most obviously illustrated,

then, by the kind of qualitative analysis of the discourse I have undertaken. But

Helen's gender is also expressed through her use of phonological variants which

are more frequent in New Zealand women's speech than men's. So, to give just

two examples, Helen consistently uses the standard variant of (ING) throughout

this excerpt (e.g. sporting, going, working, driving, etc.), and she uses a con-servative aspirated variant of intervocalic /t/ at a level of 53% in the selected

extract, almost exactly the (50%) level typical for middle-aged middle class New

Zealand women as described in Holmes (1994). Moreover, her use of pragmatic

particles and attenuators such as you know, sort of, quite, and just also

contributes to the construction of a somewhat conservative, feminine gendered

identity. I will return to this point in the conclusion.

Finally, it is worth emphasising that gender identity is constantly being

constructed and people may reinforce norms at one point, but challenge andcontest them at others. In this excerpt, in this particular context, on this

particular occasion, Helen constructs a predominantly conservative identity. In

other contexts with different participants, using features such as more

vernacular variants, imperatives and bald disagreements, the identity she

constructs is very different. Manipulating linguistic variants to emphasise

different aspects of a gendered identity is a continuous process.12

Doing male identity

Men too construct their gender identity through their discourse. In some

contexts this will be a predominantly conservative or normative masculine

identity; in others, men behave in ways more usually framed as `feminine'. The

men's stories I have analysed in the WCSNZE often reflect a concern with status,

and with giving an impression of worldly wisdom. In men's stories, `doing

gender' tends to involve presenting themselves as in control, knowledgeable,




16/29

skilled and competent (see Holmes forthcoming). The excerpt I have selected for

discussion illustrates these themes in this case in the construction of different

aspects of New Zealand male identity. Excerpt 2 consists of a conversation

between two Maori young men, possibly cousins, walking along a New Zealand

country road after a rugby match.This excerpt is a New Zealand television advertisement for a bank. At the

time, the bank used a slogan which emphasised the importance of teamwork,

and the advert achieves its effect by focussing on one very significant context in

New Zealand culture where teamwork is crucial. The bank's name is never

mentioned in the dialogue; it appears on screen briefly just before the end of the

advert. The advert is unusual, then, in that it consists entirely of a dialogue;

there is no explicit commentary.13 I will return to the dialogue's function as an

advert after discussing the gendered identities this dialogue constructs for NewZealand males.

Excerpt 2: `You can't do much without a great team'

J: [drawls] wow days this good don't come around too often eh bro? did you see me

did you see me feed quickly out to the wing and back inside to the second five and

[drawls] oh into the hands of Joey Wano and he's through and he scores a try

saves Saint Stephen's takes the cup right in the last minute of play YES++

G: did a- winger did a nice shot

J: who? Shorty Goldsmith? yeah he's an awesome winger old Shorty eh

G: and that second five that put you through the gap + that was pretty smart

J: yeah it was eh

G: could've had a go himself I reckon

J: yeah no he's smart Jimmy good player good player

(4)

G: you've got a new coach this season too haven't you

J: yeah

G: he taught you that move too didn't he

J: what move?

G: the move that scored you the try

J: oh yeah a while back + suppose he did yeah

(5)

G: awesome game Joey

(4)J: awesome team George

++

G: you can't do much without a great team Joe(y)

(5)

J: George thanks bro

++

G: don't mention it bro

HOLMES210



17/29

It is important to bear in mind that the excerpt is not a `natural' dialogue, but

a carefully crafted interchange produced by an advertising company (Saatchi

and Saatchi). Consequently it must be treated with some caution, and

recognised as providing information on stereotypical rather than representative

speech features. It is equally important to bear in mind that adverts oftenoperate within a mythological social domain, drawing on stereotypical rather

than realistically representative societal values, attitudes and beliefs. Having

recognised these constraints, however, adverts can be usefully regarded as

informative cultural reflexes, and a sociolinguistic analysis can provide illumi-

nating insights into the ways in which a society constructs stereotypical gender

identities and reinforces normative models of femininity and masculinity.14

The excerpt begins with a narrative in which Joey re-creates his moment of

glory. It then develops into an exchange between the young men in whichGeorge, the older of the two, relentlessly challenges Joey's construction of `the

way it was' by systematically identifying the contributions of other team

members to the winning try. Joey initially cheerfully acknowledges the skills

of the others, until he begins to see where things are leading, and his defensive

what move indicates some resistance. But it is just a final wriggle before he

capitulates. Finally, harmony is restored as Joey indicates he has taken the

point: success results from the co-ordinated efforts of a good team.

There are many points which could be made about this dialogue as aconvincingly constructed piece of discourse. The syntax and lexis are char-

acteristic of colloquial New Zealand English, while the phonology is typical of

East Coast Maori English, as are some of the discourse features. The unrounded

and centralised pronunciation of the GOAT diphthong in coach, go and suppose,

for example, is a stereotypical feature of Maori English. The use of bro, short for

brother but meaning `friend' or `mate', is regularly heard more often in the

speech of young Maori than Pakeha. And the dialogue makes effective use of the

pragmatic tag eh, which functions as an ethnic identity marker in Maoripeople's interaction, and which is associated particularly with the speech of

young Maori men (Meyerhoff 1994). In other words, this dialogue is skilfully

constructed to evoke the speech style of young Maori men.

During this brief exchange, the two young men construct several different

gendered identities, including at least two contrasting stereotypically masculine

identities, and one much more `feminine' identity associated with powerlessness

and politeness. The dialogue begins with a story, a skite (boast), in which Joey

literally constructs himself as a rugby hero, the man of the match. The present

tense expresses his enthusiasm and gives the story immediacy, but also

accurately incorporates a feature of another discourse, that of rugby commen-

tary. The distinctive prosody and syntax of sports commentary which have been

described by Koenraad Kuiper (1996) add another dimension to Joey's skite.

The use of another voice enriches the story (see Lee 1992; Ochs 1992: 338;

Sheldon 1992) and contributes to the effect Joey is wanting to create an

impression that he is recognised by thousands of viewers as the hero of the




18/29

match, and that the magnificence of his triumphant try with all its positive

outcomes saving the honour of the school, winning the cup is appreciated.

Thus this opening story expresses a brash, overtly self-confident, belligerent

young male identity, an identity observable in young teenage boys in many

cultures, where brashness is often a disguise for the insecurity of the young man

on the edge of adulthood (compare the young Black adolescent males described

in Abrahams 1974 and Labov 1972).

Joey's enthusiasm and high spirits are also reflected in the repetition, e.g. did

you see me? did you see me? Repetition expresses emphasis and intensifies

illocutionary force (Holmes 1984b). It is a means of indicating enthusiasm,

support, and agreement, and is often used by young men where other groups

might use an intensifier, e.g. good player good player vs he's a really good player.

Once again, too, there are resonances of another discourse, since repetition is a

very `Maori' discourse strategy, typical of Maori oratory where it is extensively

used for intensifying and emphatic effects.15

A related device, in terms of its effect, is the post-posing of the subject through

right-dislocation, e.g. he's an awesome winger old Shorty; he's smart Jimmy. This

too serves an emphatic function, suggesting Joey is giving credit where it is due,

while also identifying the player by name for George's benefit. As the dialogue

progresses, this over-confident brash young male identity is steadily deflated,

though, as mentioned, it reasserts itself briefly in the somewhat belligerent

challenge what move? as Joey attempts to evade the point George is making.

By contrast, George represents the `cool', hard-headed, taciturn male found in

so many New Zealand novels (James and Saville-Smith 1989; Phillips 1980,

1996). His task is to knock Joey into shape and teach him how to behave in an

appropriately masculine way and also in this case in a culturally appropriate

way. The requirements of two rather different social identities happen to

coalesce here: the macho, silent, undemonstrative and inexpressive Pakeha

male who keeps his emotions under firm control for fear of embarrassing his

mates, and the requirements of Maori culture that individuals act in a self-

abnegating way, recognising that their contributions should always be seen in

the context of the group, avoid seeking personal glory, and so on.16 One of Joan

Metge's Maori interviewees reports that his father `would come and watch me

play rugby but he never got excited on the sideline or yelled things like ``Well

played!'' Afterwards if I had played well, he would say that the team played well

he would never identify my performance' (Metge 1995: 166). Metge

comments that Maori disapprove of `pride which focuses on the self separate

from the group' (1995: 103). Those who boast `are quickly cut down to size by

other whanau [`extended family'] members, for they threaten whanau har-

mony and reflect badly on the group' (1995: 103).

This self-confident, authoritative, laconic male identity is expressed through a

variety of discourse devices. George's utterances are brief. He uses challenging

tags forcing Joey to re-evaluate his role in the match:

HOLMES212



19/29

you've got a new coach this season too haven't you

he taught you that move too didn't he

Even the less forceful I reckon in the utterance could've had a go himself I reckon

adds weight,17

because of the status of expert rugby critic which Joey clearlyaccords George (as evidenced in his opening appeal and his acceptance of

George's comments throughout). Many of his utterances include a positive

evaluation a nice shot, pretty smart, awesome game, but it is expressed in a

syntactically minimal form compared to Joey's comments.18 And overall his

main message is a critical one.

The discourse features of the two male identities neatly contrast throughout

the central section of the dialogue, and then become unified in the final section.

So Joey's contributions become progressively shorter, more controlled anddamped down as the interaction progresses, more like those of George, in

fact, until finally they precisely echo each other:

awesome game Joey

awesome team George

And just as Joey's talk moves steadily down the emotional scale, from excited

self-congratulation to restrained gratitude, George's contributions move from

challenging but indirectly expressed criticism to explicit, though restrained,approval.

At least one other rather different identity gets voiced throughout this

exchange. It is an identity associated with lack of confidence and a need for

re-assurance, features typical of the powerless, and stereotypically associated

with feminine rather than masculine identity. It is sporadically evident even in

the opening skite, for instance, in the use of the appealing tag eh and address

form bro. Here the insecurity of the adolescent young man feeling his way

towards adulthood surfaces briefly through the alternative disguise of over-enthusiastic brashness. Subsequently Joey responds to George's challenges in

ways which are more typical of women's style than men's. He uses pragmatic

devices which appeal to his listener and emphasise affiliation: questions, tags,

hedges, agreement, and repetition are all used to appeal to George and

attempt to elicit approval. During the central section of the exchange, then,

Joey is constructing an identity associated with powerlessness, a `feminine'

identity. He is responsive rather than aggressive, and appealing rather than

assertive.

Interestingly, it has been suggested that such features are also more common

in Maori discourse. David Britain (1992) proposes that positive politeness

markers (such as the high rising terminal contour and the tag eh) which

indicate a wish for cooperation and agreement may have a special appeal to

Maori because they serve an important affective interpersonal function.

Certainly, Polynesian cultures place great emphasis on the creation of involve-

ment and rapport in informal discourse (Besnier 1989).




20/29

It is also worth noting that while George's brevity and challenging approach

are characteristics common to both Pakeha and Maori male stereotypes, his

overall method of dealing with Joey is distinctively Maori. With five brief

comments on the game, which neatly, unostentatiously, and with great

accuracy identify the contributions of others to Joey's success, George steadilydeflates Joey's bubble. The message is not explicit he leaves Joey to draw the

obvious conclusion. Joey's what move challenges the inexplicitness (possibly

symbolically challenging the underlying message which is increasingly difficult

to avoid). George is forced to be explicit about the move he is referring to, but he

nowhere spells out the message. A Pakeha approach would typically be much

more explicit, with overtly critical comments, possibly accompanied by jeering,

swearing and verbal abuse.

Finally, a brief comment on the function of this dialogue as an advertisement.Advertisements are typically `heteroglossic' in Mikhail Bakhtin's (1981) terms:

`the commercial is the meeting place of many different ways of speaking, many

discourses' (Lee 1992: 171). We hear the language of rugby commentary, of

Maori identity, and of New Zealand nationalism; we hear the voice of the brash

young adolescent male and the wiser older cousin, the language of humour,

teasing, and humility. The excerpt presents a model of positive New Zealand

identity and it is a very male identity. The equation of rugby and masculinity

with New Zealand identity is widely asserted and accepted, though obviouslynot unquestioned (James and Saville-Smith 1989: 51, Kuiper 1991). The advert

appeals to cherished New Zealand values such as male `mateship', team spirit,

and the paramount status of rugby, the national sport (Phillips 1996). More

subtly, it uses a very effective Maori method of indirect teaching and learning to

convey its message (Metge 1995). Hence the bank is firmly associated with

highly valued New Zealand myths and icons. It uses humour (the young skiter

is properly but in a kindly way put in his place by his older cousin) and under-

statement, attractive elements of any communication in New Zealand wheremany (especially men) get embarrassed when personal issues are made too

explicit or emotions too openly displayed. The message that `you can't do much

without a good team' is conveyed indirectly, but it is unmistakable, and the

audience, like Joey, is given plenty of time (via George's pauses) to take the

point.

The advertisers have unerringly identified a number of crucial components in

New Zealand identity, and especially New Zealand male identity, in constructing

this vignette. The process of knocking young men into shape also known as

socialisation that is portrayed in this advert is a very significant component in

the construction of New Zealand male identity. The dialogue presents in a

microcosm the on-going process of gender construction, as Joey and George do

their rather different New Zealand male identities, and as Joey is guided towards

more acceptable behaviour, in terms both of his gender identity and also his

cultural identity.

The two excerpts analysed have illustrated rather conservative New Zealand

HOLMES214



21/29

gender identities identities which conform to societal norms and expectations

about appropriately masculine and feminine behaviour. Though there is

evidence of change in some social groups, it must be recognised that the on-

going processes of gender identity construction overwhelmingly work to favour

the kinds of identities illustrated in this section. Though seeds of change can bediscerned as women enact power more overtly, and men refuse to suppress the

expression of their feelings, it is useful to recognise that the majority of

interactions tend to re-create traditional gender identities and express the

pervasive, though not universally accepted, New Zealand values exemplified

in these excerpts.

CONCLUSION

In every interaction, we make linguistic choices which express a range of

meanings. Social dialect research has indicated the ways in which women and

men signal their gender by their phonological and morphological choices.

Women and men differ in the relative frequency with which they use particular

linguistic variants, and in some communities, they also differ in the range of

styles which they control, a pattern that reflects the differing demands of

gendered social roles. Research on pragmatic devices and interactional dis-course strategies has also demonstrated that choices among these can be used to

express particular speech functions or social meanings, such as `tentativeness'

or `aggression', support or lack of interest, meanings which have become

`gendered' as `masculine' or `feminine' through habitual association with

particular social groups. They become the locus of purely symbolic sex role

differentiation in society', of masculine and feminine norms or dimensions

(Milroy 1992: 175).

Beatriz Lavandera (1982, cited in Milroy 1992: 175) uses the term `socialsignificance' to refer to the patterns identified in social dialect research, and the

term `social meaning' for those described by discourse analysts. Items such as

sounds, which are inherently meaningless, derive social significance from their

distributional patterns. Social significance is acquired by the pattern of an item's

use, its association with a particular social group. So a particular phonological

variant may have the social significance of `female' or `youthful' because it

tends to be used most often by these social groups. By contrast, items such as tag

questions and pragmatic particles express inherent social meanings such as

assertiveness, facilitation, rapport, tentativeness, and so on.

It seems to me, however, that when items with intrinsic meaning are

involved, the two concepts inter-relate. Forms which express social meaning

may acquire social significance on the basis of their distribution. So, as

illustrated above, particular particles are often favoured by particular social

groups (Stubbe and Holmes 1995). And, conversely, forms which acquire social

significance by association with particular social groups, may also express




22/29

particular social meanings, as demonstrated by Meyerhoff's (1992, 1994)

analysis of the range of functions or social meanings associated with the

pragmatic tag eh, an item which characterises Maori speech, as discussed

above. In such cases, there is an obvious link between the social meaning

and the social significance of an item. The tag eh functions primarily as apositive politeness device, inviting involvement, expressing solidarity and

rapport, values which rate highly in Maori culture. Similarly Britain's (1992)

analysis of the high rising terminal intonation contour identified its interactive,

positive politeness function as an important aspect of its social meaning,

accounting for its social significance as a marker of Maori and female speech.

The particular social meaning of such discourse features in the contexts being

analysed is relatively transparent: the pragmatic effect of a question tag or rising

intonation contour as an interactive positive politeness device is readilycomprehensible.

It has been suggested, however, that even where the link is not so obvious, it

may become established. Firstly, inherently meaningless sounds develop social

significance by association with the usage of particular groups (Eckert and

McConnell-Ginet 1995: 503; Milroy 1992: 176). Then, because particular

social meanings are associated with those groups, the purely linguistic variants

may also take on that symbolic association. So items expressing support and

rapport are often associated with femininity. Equally, through more frequentuse in the speech of women compared to men, particular sounds may become

associated with the expression of femininity.

Hence the distinction between social significance and social meaning may

blur in the context of the on-going construction of social identity in face-to-face

interaction as illustrated in the final section of this paper. A particular instance

of Helen's use of aspirated /t/ or the standard variant of (ING) can signal

`conservative feminine identity' in this context just as clearly as her choice of

lexical items such as sweet, dear and little in relation to her daughter. In otherwords, the analysis demonstrates an association between the use of particular

sounds and the expression of particular social meanings. As a result of the

consistent association of various components, Penelope Eckert and Sally

McConnell-Ginet (1995: 505) similarly suggest that the choice of a particular

linguistic variant (a diphthong) in their analysis of the speech of two contrasting

adolescent American peer groups, `jocks' and `burn-outs', `takes on meaning

perhaps not in isolation, but at least as a component of a broader style' (1995:

503). In some contexts, then, speakers are simultaneously creating meaning for

a phonetic variant and for a social identity, and `the use of phonetic variation

and the construction of identities are inseparable' (1995: 503). In such cases

the phonological analysis typical of social dialect research provides information

about `how people are actively constructing their own social identities and

relations' (Eckert and McConnell-Genet 1995: 503). Analyses of this kind

strikingly demonstrate the mutually complementary nature of quantitative

and qualitative analysis (see Holmes 1996 for further discussion).

HOLMES216



23/29

The final section of this paper provided two examples of gender construction

in interaction. Talking to a `straight', somewhat judgmental friend, Helen

focussed on a conservative aspect of her gender identity her role as a good

mother and daughter. Many different levels of her discourse contributed as she

constructed this gender identity: phonological choices, lexical selections and heruse of pragmatic devices, as well as the topic and structure of the narrative she

chose to recount. The second example illustrated similar processes in a dialogue

constructed to associate a particular product with positive New Zealand values.

The choice of male protagonists is no accident in this context, and the analysis

demonstrated that their discourse was characterised by a range of devices

through which they constructed a complex set of competing gender identities

for different purposes, including two contrasting masculine identities and a

more feminine one.In conclusion, then, recent research in language and gender clearly indicates

the importance of focussing not on biological sex, nor even on the culturally

constructed category of gender, but rather on the diverse realisations of the

dynamic dimensions of masculinity and femininity. This paper has attempted to

integrate insights from a dynamic constructionist approach with a more

traditional variationist approach to the expression of gender identity, a

direction advocated in Schiffrin's recent paper (1996: 199200).19 The analysis

has illustrated some of the ways in which individuals draw on establishednorms to encode particular aspects of their identity in particular interactions.

As Schiffrin says, identities are situated both globally and locally, and in any

interaction we are `continually locating and relocating ourselves, defining and

redefining ourselves and our worlds' (1996: 200). Both quantitative survey

research and qualitative discourse analysis can contribute in exploring the

ways this is achieved, the ways in which gender identity and gender relations

are constructed in interaction. For it is the interactive, continuously changing

ways that people use language to construct their gender identity and relationswhich provide most insight into the way gender functions in particular

communities.

NOTES

11. This paper was presented as a plenary session at Sociolinguistics Symposium 11 held

at the University of Wales, Cardiff in September 1996. I would like to express

appreciation to the Centre for Language and Communication Research, University of

Wales, Cardiff, where I was provided with space and peace to revise it. I am also

grateful to Miriam Meyerhoff, two anonymous reviewers, and the editors, Nik

Coupland and Allan Bell, for valuable comments on this paper, and to Laurie

Bauer for confirming my phonetic analyses. The research was made possible by a

grant from the New Zealand Foundation for Research, Science and Technology.

2. I recognise that generalisations which treat women and men as an undifferentiated




24/29

group often conceal a great deal of within-group diversity. Indeed, I am aware of this

problem at first hand from analyses I have undertaken. Nevertheless, I think there is

a place for generalisations, and that provided they are treated with caution they can

be very illuminating and stimulate further useful research (see Holmes 1993 for

further discussion of this issue).3. The sample was constructed to permit a class difference only for women; working

class women used 25% vernacular variants vs 15% among middle class women.

There was no difference at all in the level of use of the vernacular variant by Maori

and Pakeha (New Zealanders of European origin): 34% for both groups. Other

variables patterned differently, however, and ethnicity proved more significant than

gender for several variables.

4. The Wellington Social Dialect Survey suggested a number of caveats and qualifica-

tions that might need to be made to such a generalisation. Patterns varied according

to whether a variable was a stable one, or was involved in linguistic change, for

example. Another relevant factor accounting for the extent of style shift was the

extent to which people relaxed during the interview. See Holmes (1993) for further

discussion. See also footnote 5.

5. In communities where the different role demands on men are more extensive than

on women, men's stylistic range will presumably be correspondingly wider. Further

research is needed to explore this point.

6. It is also worth noting that second generation women from minority ethnic groups

are more often bilingual than their men, further evidence of their stylistic flexibility

and tendency to develop a wider linguistic repertoire than their menfolk. Minority

women see the value of maintaining the ethnic language, which is so important interms of family relationships and ethnic identity, as well as learning English which

has obvious instrumental value. The material discussed in Holmes (1993) suggests

that women value highly the important role the community language plays in

maintaining community relationships, including those between grandparents and

children, as well as its unique role in expressing their ethnic identity. Women's

networks tend to encourage more extensive use of the ethnic language in regular

social interactions than men's do, and women place particularly high value on the

distinctive social and affective functions expressed by the ethnic language compared

to English.17. In addition to my own research, there are now a number of other studies which

carefully attempt to control such factors: e.g. Bonnano (1995), Cameron et al.

(1989), Preisler (1986).

18. The context is crucial for accurate interpretation, but for space reasons I have here

left contextual detail to be supplied from the reader's experience (or see Holmes

1986, 1995).

19. When they are used by women, the `same' strategies are often evaluated quite

differently (Crawford 1995, Holmes 1984).

10. See also Moonwomon (1989) for further discussion of this point.

11. Pakeha is a Maori word which is widely used to refer to New Zealanders of European(mainly British) descent.

12. Meyerhoff (1996b), for instance, discusses evidence from Jabeur (1987, cited in

Milroy 1992) and Trabelsi (1991) that in any particular communicative event, a

Tunisian woman selects from a range of potential female identities educated

woman, traditional woman, local Tunisian woman and she may well manipulate

linguistic variants from different languages (Tunisian Arabic and French) to

emphasise different identities at different points.

HOLMES218



25/29

13. Using Sussex's (1989) model to analyse Swiss TV commercials, Lee (1992: 171)

reports that 91 percent included explicit commentary or `comment' statements. The

comment presents a `commercial-evaluative statement about the product and its

relevance to the audience' (Sussex 1989: 164).

14. I owe this useful point to the editors of this Journal.15. Reduplication is also a morphological strategy used in Maori (as in other Polynesian

languages) for expressing intensification.

16. Miriam Meyerhoff (personal communication) points out that one could also add into

the Pakeha side of the equation the pervasive and powerful New Zealand `Tall

Poppy' syndrome which discourages any New Zealander from attempting to rise

above the average by threatening to cut them down to size.

17. This is the equivalent of the deliberative function of I think discussed in Holmes(1985).

18. A feature of male compliments. See Holmes (1988).

19. My paper was completed before I read Deborah Schiffrin's (1996) detailed andilluminating analysis of `how narrative language reveals self and identity' (191).

Though the scope of the analysis and the kind of material analysed are very

different, the similarities in our conclusions are striking.

REFERENCES

Abrahams, Roger D. 1974. Black talking on the street. In Richard Bauman and Joel

Sherzer (eds.) Explorations in the ethnography of speaking. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. 240262.

Bakhtin, M. M. 1981. Discourse in the novel. In Michael Holquist (ed.) The dialogicimagination. Austin: University of Texas Press. 259422.

Bell, Allan. 1984. Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13: 145204.Bell, Allan. 1990. Audience and referee design in New Zealand media language. In Allan

Bell and Janet Holmes (eds.) New Zealand ways of speaking English. Clevedon, Avon:Multilingual Matters. 165194.

Besnier, Niko. 1989. Information withholding as a manipulative and collusive strategy

in Nukulaelae gossip. Language in Society 18: 315341.Bonanno, Michelina P. 1995. Hedges in the medical intake interview: Discourse task,

gender and role. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown

University.

Britain, David. 1992. Linguistic change in intonation: The use of High Rising Terminals

in New Zealand English. Language Variation and Change. 4: 77104.Brown, Penelope. 1980. Why and how are women more polite? In Sally McConnell-

Ginet, Ruth Borker and Nellie Furman (eds.) Women and language in literature andsociety. New York: Praeger. 111136.

Bruner, Jerome. 1987. Life as narrative. Social Research 54: 1132.Bruner, Jerome. 1990. Autobiography as self. In Jerome Bruner (ed.) Acts of meaning.

Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 3366.

Bruner, Jerome. 1991. The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry 18: 121.Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York:

Routledge.

Cameron, Deborah. 1995. Rethinking language and gender studies: Some issues for the

1990s. In Sarah Mills (ed.) Language and gender: Interdisciplinary perspectives. London:Longman. 3144.




26/29

Cameron, Deborah and Jennifer Coates. 1984. Some problems in the sociolinguistic

explanation of sex differences. Language and Communication. 5: 143151.Cameron, Deborah, Fiona McAlinden and Kathy O'Leary. 1989. Lakoff in context. In

Jennifer Coates and Deborah Cameron (eds.) Women in their speech communities.

London: Longman. 7493.Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, consciousness and time. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Chambers, J. K. 1992. Linguistic correlates of gender and sex. English World-Wide 13:173218.

Coates, Jennifer. 1993. Women, men and language (2nd edition). London: Longman.Coupland, Nikolas. 1980. Style-shifting in a Cardiff work-setting. Language in Society 9:

112.

Coupland, Nikolas and Justine Coupland. 1995. Discourse, identity, and aging. In Jon F.

Nussbaum and Justine Coupland (eds.) Handbook of communication and aging research.

Hove, U.K. and Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. 79103.

Coupland, Nikolas, Justine Coupland and Howard Giles. 1991. Language, society and theelderly. Oxford: Blackwell.

Crawford, Mary. 1995. Talking difference: On gender and language. London: Sage.Dines, Elizabeth. 1980. Variation in discourse `and stuff like that'. Language in Society 9:

1333.

Dubois, Sylvie and Barbara Horvath. 1992. Interviewer's linguistic production and its

effect on speaker's descriptive style. Language Variation and Change 4: 125135.Eckert, Penelope. 1989. The whole woman: Sex and gender differences in variation.

Language Variation and Change 1: 245267.Eckert, Penelope and Sally McConnell-Ginet. 1992. Communities of practice: Where

language, gender and power all live. In Kira Hall, Mary Bucholtz and Birch Moon-

womon (eds.) Locating power (Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women andLanguage Conference, April 1992. Vol. 1). Berkeley, California: Berkeley Women

and Language Group, University of California. 8999.

Eckert, Penelope and Sally McConnell-Ginet. 1995. Constructing meaning, constructing

selves: Snapshots of language, gender and class from Belton High. In Kira Hall and

Mary Bucholtz (eds.) Gender articulated. New York and London: Routledge. 469507.

Escure, Genevieve. 1991. Gender roles and linguistic variation in the Belizean Creolecommunity. In Jenny Cheshire (ed.) English around the world: Sociolinguistic perspectives.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 595609.

Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and power. London: Longman.Fishman, Pamela M. 1983. Interaction: The work women do. In Barrie Thorne, Cheris

Kramarae and Nancy Henley (eds.) Language, gender and society. Rowley, Massachu-setts: Newbury House. 89101.

Giles, Howard, Nikolas Coupland and Justine Coupland. 1991. Contexts of accommodation.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Graddol, David and Joan Swann. 1989. Gender voices. London: Blackwell.Hirschman, Lynette. 1974. Analysis of supportive and assertive behaviour in conversa-

tions. Paper presented to the Linguistic Society of America, San Francisco.

Holmes, Janet. 1982. Expressing doubt and certainty in English. R.E.L.C. Journal 13: 928.

Holmes, Janet. 1984a. `Women's language': A functional approach. General Linguistics

24: 149178.

Holmes, Janet. 1984b. Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics 8: 345365.

HOLMES220



27/29

Holmes, Janet. 1985. Sex differences and miscommunication: Some data from New

Zealand. In John B. Pride (ed.) Cross-cultural encounters: Communication andmiscommunication. Melbourne: River Seine. 24 -43.

Holmes, Janet. 1986. Functions of you know in women's and men's speech. Language in

Society 15: 122.Holmes, Janet. 1988. Paying compliments: A sex-preferential positive politeness strategy.Journal of Pragmatics 12: 445465.

Holmes, Janet. 1993. Women's talk: The question of sociolinguistic universals. AustralianJournal of Communication 20: 125149.

Holmes, Janet. 1994. New Zealand flappers: An analysis of T Voicing in New Zealand

English. English World-Wide 15: 195224.Holmes, Janet. 1995. Women, men and politeness. London: Longman.Holmes, Janet. 1996. Women's role in language change: A place for quantification.

Paper presented to the Fourth Berkeley Women and Language Conference, Berkeley,

April 1996.

Holmes, Janet. Forthcoming. Story-telling in New Zealand women's and men's talk. In

Ruth Wodak (ed.) Gender, discourse and ideology. London: Sage.Holmes Janet, Allan Bell and Mary Boyce. 1991. Variation and change in New Zealand

English: A social dialect investigation (Project Report to the Social Sciences Committee ofthe Foundation for Research, Science and Technology). Wellington: Victoria Uni-

versity.

Horvath, Barbara. 1985. Variation in Australian English. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Huspek, Michael. 1989. Linguistic variability and power: An analysis ofyou know/I thinkvariation in working-class speech. Journal of Pragmatics 13: 661683.

Ide, Sachiko. 1982. Japanese sociolinguistics: Politeness and women's language. Lingua57: 357385.

Ide, Sachiko. 1991. How and why do women speak more politely in Japanese. In Sachiko

Ide and Naomi McGloin (eds.) Aspects of Japanese women's language. Tokyo: Kurosio.6379.

Ide, Sachiko, Motoko Hori, Akiko Kawasaki, Shoko Ikuta and Hitomi Haga. 1986. Sex

differences and politeness in Japanese. International Journal of the Sociology of Language

58: 2536.Jabeur, Michel. 1987. A sociolinguistic study in Rades, Tunisia. Unpublished PhD

dissertation. Reading: University of Reading.

James, Bev and Kay Saville-Smith. 1989. Gender, culture and power. Auckland: OxfordUniversity Press.

Kuiper, Koenraad. 1991. Sporting formulae and what they tell us: Two models of male

solidarity. In Jenny Cheshire (ed.) English around the world: Sociolinguistic perspectives.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 200209.

Kuiper, Koenraad. 1996. Smooth talkers: The linguistic performance of auctioneers andsportscasters. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Labov, William. 1966. The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington,D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Labov, William. 1972. The transformation of experience in narrative syntax. In

William Labov Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.354396.

Labov, William. 1990. The intersection of sex and social class in the course of language

change. Language Variation and Change 2: 205254.Lakoff, Robin. 1975. Language and woman's place. New York: Harper Colophon Books.




28/29

Lakoff, Robin T. 1990. Talking power: The politics of language in our lives. New York: BasicBooks.

Lavandera, Beatriz. 1978. Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop? Language inSociety 7: 171182.

Lavandera, Beatriz. 1982. Le principe de reinterpretation dans la theorie de la variation.In Norbert Dittmar and B. Schlieben-Lange (eds.) Die Soziolinguistik in romantisch-sprachigen Landern. Tu bingen: Narr.

Lee, David. 1992. Competing discourses. London: Longman.Leet-Pellegrini, Helena M. 1980. Conversational dominance as a function of gender and

expertise. In Howard Giles, Peter Robinson and Philip Smith (eds.) Language: Socialpsychological perspectives. Pergamon Press: Oxford. 97104.

Linde, Charlotte. 1993. Life stories: The creation of coherence. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Metge, Joan. 1995. New growth from old: The whaanau in the modern world. Wellington:

Victoria University Press.

Meyerhoff, Miriam. 1992. `We've a

woman, language and identity

Documents