- 上一篇：法律英语文体研究
- 下一篇：小组讨论在英语口语学习中的作用
2 General Features of Female Language
The purpose of this chapter is, first, to provide a short introduction to the language and gender research, and then to present female linguistic features that would be applied in the analysis.
Before we start to present the general features of female language, it is necessary for us to bear a clear picture of language and gender theory in mind, which undoubtedly plays a basic role of female language theory. “Deficit”, “dominance” and “difference” consist of three main frameworks in language and gender studies. (Talbot, 2010:130) In the deficit framework, women’s language shows powerless，and they appear to be insecure and lacking in authority. Besides that, the dominance framework interprets language patterns as symptoms of men’s dominance over women. The last framework, the difference approach, is still widely accepted today. In the difference approach, women and men are thought to belong to two different cultures, starting from childhood to adulthood, which, to some extent, explains why men and women use language differently. Based on the language and gender theory, the following part is a presentation of female linguistic features that will be employed in the analysis.
The chapter consists of six subchapters, each of which describes a linguistic feature. In order to have an intuitive perspective, linguistic features relevant to gender difference would be discussed if necessary, which are believed to provide a whole picture for us, so as to have a better understanding of female language.
2.1 Topic Development
In Coates book, Pilkington claims that women in general talk cooperatively. This means that they tend to share the right to speak rather than competing for it. As Pilkington’s research shows that one speaker rarely speaks for a long time without involvement from others. When women disagree, they normally do so indirectly, for instance, by questioning a statement rather than disagreeing explicitly. On the other hand, men use expressions of disagreement and they question, as well as negate other’s statements in a much more direct way than women. (1996: 257-269)
The cooperation also reflects in women’s way of topic development. As Coates has demonstrated, women generally introduce more conversational topics than men when interacting in heterogeneous conversations. Men will, however, normally decide which ones will be elaborated on. Women prefer continuity rather than discontinuity, and thus topic shifts occur gradually. In all-female discourse there is no rule that only one person can speak at a time. Participants will often ask questions or make comments for an active listenership. According to Coates, women use more questions than men. (Coates, 1996:201) They use questions to keep conversation going, to get the other parties involved, to check the views of other participants and to invite someone to tell a story.
2.2 Hedges and Tag Questions
The linguistic features being discussed here indicate the speaker’s confidence or lack of confidence in what he or she is saying.
Coates (1997:245) and Preislers (1986:170) are the main researchers in these areas, their research findings of hedges demonstrate multiple functions, which can also occur at the same time. They allow us to be sensitive to others’ feeling; they help us in the search for the right words to express what we mean or specifically to develop a new idea; they help us to avoid playing the expert. We are doing so because the topics are related to feeling and people; only by this way can we keep the conversation tentative. Research conducted by Preisler also shows that one of the hedges that women use most frequently is I think. By the use of this specific term, women weaken their statement by stressing that their utterance is ‘only’ their opinion, not a universal truth.
Another interesting phenomenon is the use of tag questions. Undoubtedly, women are apt to use more tag questions than men. However, the same research also shows that both men and women use tags more frequently in homogenous than in heterogeneous groups. (Preisler, 1986:271)