Language & Gender

Toward a Comprehensive Theory of Language and Gender Author(s): Victoria L. Bergvall Source: Language in Society, Vol. 28, No. 2, Communities of Practice in Language and Gender Research (Jun., 1999), pp. 273-293 Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4168929 Accessed: 31/07/2010 21:36 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp.. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Language in Society.

http://www.jstor.org

Printedin the United States of America Language in Society 28, 273-293. Printedin

Toward a comprehensive theory of language and gender VICTORIA

L. BERGVALL

Departmentof Departmentof Humanities TechnologicalUniversity Michigan TechnologicalUniversity 1400 TownsendDrive TownsendDrive Houghton,MI Houghton,MI 49931-1295 [email protected] ABSTRACT

has in language and genderresearch gender researchhas The searchfor explanatorycoherence explanatorycoherencein fostered variety of researchmethods and analyses; this article evaluates with its focus on Practiceapproach,with Communitiesof Practiceapproach, the contributionsof contributionsof the Communitiesof the constructive practices of group especially mutual engagement of than presupposing of gender.Rather gender. Ratherthan negotiated practiceof learning jointly negotiatedpractice gender differences as a starting point, CofP emphasizes the learning and groups;CofP theory thus mutabilityin mutabilityin genderedlinguistic displays across groups;CofP markingit as deviant. However, while variation,not markingit naturalizesintragroup naturalizesintragroupvariation,not on thesocial much-neededattentionon the social construction theCofP the CofPapproach approachfocuses much-neededattention research must be cross-culturallyvariable, gender researchmust of gender as local and cross-culturallyvariable, augmentedby augmented by critical study of two other facets of gender: ideology and theory comprehensivetheory of a more comprehensive critical componentsof innateness,which innateness,which are criticalcomponents of Practice,gender,ideology, gender,ideology, (Communityof of genderfor language research.(Community genderfor languageresearch. dominance, diversity)* innateness,difference, innateness, difference, dominance,diversity)* numberof tensions have gender, numberof Inthe In the pastdecade researchon languageand language andgender, past decade of researchon arisen between the study of gender differences and similarities, difference and andparticulars. While the field has struggledto struggledto find coparticulars.While dominance,universals dominance, universalsand in language arises (e.g. Cameron herence and to explainwhy gender variationin explain why gendervariation Coates 1988, Holmes 1993, Freed 1994), there has also been growing undergender expression throughlanguage standingof standingof the diversity of possibilities of genderexpression across different cultures (e.g. Ochs Keenan 1974, Brown 1980, 1993, Sherzer McConnell-Ginet 1992b, Gal 1992). ConsiderCameron 1988, Eckert & McConnell-Ginet1992b, 1987, Cameron1988, forwardwith the publicationof ation of these complex issues took a majorstep forwardwith "Think practically and look lolandmarkessay, McConnell-Ginet'slandmark essay, "Thinkpractically Eckert & McConnell-Ginet's (1992b). This work community-basedpractice"(1992b). cally: Language and gender as community-basedpractice" traditionto provide systematic means to was among the first in the linguistic traditionto addresswhat address what had become growing concern in other fields (e.g. psychology, sociology, anthropology, and women's studies): the idea that the categories of monolithic variables treatedas presupposed,monolithicvariables "men"should not be treatedas "women"and "women"and "men"should CambridgeUniversity Press 0047-4045/99 $9.50 C) 1999 CambridgeUniversity

273

VICTORIA

L. BERGVALL

in thesearchforunderstandingof variation,butratherthattheythemselvesshould be subject to scrutinyandanalysis. In this article, place in historical context the significant contributionsof Eckert McConnell-Ginet(1992a, 1992b, 1995, and this and the communities of practice(CofP) approachthey propose. examine theircall for furtherethnographicwork,theiradmonitionsagainstprematuregeneralization and especially their claim that therewas, at the time of their 1992b article, no coherenttheorythatcouldbindtogetherthe burgeoningresearchon languageand gender. proposesome of theperspectivesthata coherenttheoryof languageand gender must address, taking tripartiteapproachsuggested by Shakespeare's commenton theoriginsof greatness: "Some areborngreat;some achieve greatness; and some have greatnessthrustupon them."Thus addressthree critical facets of gender:(a) the INNATE, concerningthe debates aboutgender, sex, and inbornphysical difference; (b) the ACHIEVED, consideringthe linguistic means throughwhich speakersconstructtheir genderedstatus (the perspective of the CofP approach);and (c) the ASCRIBED, assessing the role of ideology and hegemonic belief systems which underliesocial roles, andwhich thruston speakers certainassumptionsof genderroles andbehavior. TERMINOLOGICAL

EXCURSUS

ON

SEX AND

GENDER

Whatis theoryof languageandgender theoryof, anyway?Linguistsworking on languageandgenderwere initially reluctantto use the term"gender"because of its pre-existinglinguisticuse referringto morpho-syntacticgender(cf. Coates 1986:4). Today,however, most linguists have overcome theirunease and have adoptedthe more common cross-disciplinarysense of GENDER as a social construct,operatingin complex andcontestedassociationwith the biological constructof SEX (McConnell-Ginet1988). The criticalquestionsthatmost studiesof languageandgender have grappled with in some forminclude WHETHER there is genderdifferentiationof language use, WHENCE it arises, WHAT FORMSit takeslinguistically,and WHAT EFFECTSit has in society. West 1990 notedthatgendersurfaces fromamong othervariables, such as power, citing its role as a "master"statusvariable(Hughes 1945). Every known society seems to takephysical differenceas fundamentalprinciple,reflected in language(e.g. Brown 1980, Eckert McConnell-Ginet1992a,Holmes 1993, Tannen1993, Wodak Benke 1996). But it is clear that,across the world, thereis greatvariationin the ways thatthe social constructionsof genderplay off sex linguistically. One explanationadvancedto accountfor cognitive andlinguisticgender differences comes from sociobiologists and theirpopularinterpreters,who claim thatsuch differencesarose and were reified over the millenniain which women were gatherersand men were hunters(e.g. Joseph 1992, Nadeau 1996, Morris 274

LanguageinSociety28:2 (1999)

A COMPREHENSIVE

THEORY OF LANGUAGE

AND GENDER

1998; but for criticism, see Lewontin et al. 1984, Fausto-Sterling1992, Swann 1992, Thorne 1993). However,life in a (post)modern,increasinglytechnological world seems to rely ever less on physical distinctionsbased on procreationand outsize and overpowerwomen. Yet signifphysical dimorphism, icant gender-basedpower differentialspersist:Who, having enjoyed the privileges of power, is likely to relinquishit willingly? Across societies today, clothing covers most evidence of the primarysexual characteristicsof bodily differentiation,andcould well be used to obscure it; but societies seem more intenton exaggeratingandplayingup sexual differentiation thansubmergingit (Morris 1998). Thus secondaryandtertiarymarkers including voice andvocal behavior become the obvious means by which to sort people. Yet as Ochs points out (1992:340), "few featuresof language directly and exclusively index gender."The task of linguists working on gender is to figure out how this complex indexing works, andwhat it signifies. The explosion of researchon language andgenderin recent yearshas yielded numerousanalyses across a wide range of linguistic practice.The subjectof at least some partof that debateis the very natureof the variationunderstudy:Are we examining linguistic variationthatresultsfrom gender,or from sex? Is there any discernible differencebetween the two? Cameron 1997 considers the theoretical debates surroundingthe questionof sex and gender,working from paradigms summarizedby Mathieu 1989: (1) a. Is sex basic andfixed, with genderthe socially mediatedexpression of biological givens? b. Do genderand sex co-vary,with gendersymbolizing sex in freerrelationshipto biology thansuggested by the first paradigm? c. Is genderthe fundamentalperspective,itself constructingand interpretingsex?

Should we and can we, as researchers,begin with the sex-based categories FEMALE andMALE, exploringtheirdifferencesandsimilaritiesin the instantiationin WOMEN and MEN?Or do we begin with GENDER, examiningthe social construction of FEMININITY and MASCULINITY, and their effects on language? Traditionally,variationiststudieshave proceededfromassumptionof the first paradigmproposedby Mathieu.Onebegins by readingoff the obvious sex of the subjectsunderstudy,categorized as male or female, in pursuitof phonological variationand its explanationwith respectto gender (e.g. Labov 1991). The second paradigmsuggested by Mathieu is social-constructionist,dealing with the social symbolizationof genderthroughlanguage(e.g. Sherzer1987, Ochs 1992). Only in recent years have linguists and gender theorists really questioned the heartof what constitutesthe social construction seeing its operationnot merely on the language producedby speakers,but also on the interpretationof the body itself (e.g. Butler 1990, 1993, Nicholson 1994, Bing Bergvall 1996, among many others). However, the carefulterminologicaldistinctions createdby theoristsseem to collapse in real-worldusage. Considerthese threeinstances: Language in Society 28:2 (1999)

275

VICTORIA

L. BERGVALL

colleague leans over to me during meeting,andaskswhathe shouldfill in when a form asks him to give his gender,when his options are two boxes, "Male"and "Female." b. In trying to answer his preschool son's questionabouthow boys are different from girls, the fatherexplains to his son, "Youare the male gender." c. graduatestudentdelving into the natureof women's political involvementis advisedto cut the section exploring the social constructionof "women"because it will introduce too many complicated variables;she should instead focus on variablesof "life stage (age)," within restrictedselection/notion of "class."

(2) a.

These situationssuggest at first thatthe debate abouttermsmerelyrevealspublic confusion. Theorists over the past decade have challengedthe binarynatureof social gender,andtheywouldgenerallyuse the termsmale andfemaleto describe basic biological, ratherthan social variation.But in popularterms,the resolution of the sex/gender debate comes down to substitutionof "gender"for "sex"as morepolite term,probablyto avoid the tabo implicationsof sexuality. Certainly,in the first example, would expect that most institutionswould not really care to receive complicatedexplanationof the past bisexual-social experiences of my friend that challenge any binary coding of his orientation.As 2b-c suggest, in the rush of everydaylife, we push for simplicityin background areas to allow complexityin the areaof ourfocus. Fromtheparentsof the threeyear-oldin 2b, who wish to teach him tha girls can do anythingboys can do (but who don't want to get into issues of trans-genderedbehavior and sexuality), to researchersas in 2c, who can't take time to focus on every possible variable(cf. Labov 1991) we all simplify,we box and stack,we set aside complications. Public use of the termgender thus seems to transferold assumptionsof basic sexual dichotomiesof female andmale to a new cover term;butgendertheorists intendtheiruse of the termto pointto theprimacyof the social constructionover the physical.As Butlersuggests (1990:7), looking hardat the system makes the whole distinctionbetween sex andgendercollapse back onto itself: If the immutablecharacterof sex is contested, perhaps this construct called "sex" is as culturallyconstructedas gender; indeed, perhapsit was always alreadygender,withtheconsequencethatthe distinctionbetween sex andgender turnsout to Althoughthegeneralpublicmay preferto view the gulf betweenwomen and men as vast andclear-cut-judging frombook sales of Men arefromMars, Womenare from Venus(Gray 1992) most linguistic researcherswould dismiss the "alien" interpretation,and would point to the obviously high degree of mutuallyintelligible talkbetween women and men; they would see the moreinterestingissue to be the disentanglingof the interplayof gender and language in the context of other social variables.As pointed out by Eckert McConnell-Ginet(1992a,b) andby others(e.g. Sherzer1987, Bucholtz 1995, Mendoza-Denton1995), gender is implicated with our other social identities in such a complex way that it is difficultto extractit or to expect thatmonolithicbehaviorswill be exhibited by the world's "women"or "men."' 276

Language in Society 28:2 (1999)

A COMPREHENSIVE BRIEF IN

HISTORY

OF

THEORY EXPLANATIONS

OF LANGUAGE FOR

GENDER

AND

GENDER

VARIATION

LANGUAGE

Modem work on language and genderhas generally drawnon three accounts of variation:that women's language is regardedas DEFICIENT when compared to men's; that it fundamentallyreflects men's DOMINANCE over women; or that it arises from DIFFERENCEin the socialization patternsof women and men. Eckert & McConnell-Ginet1992b give a complex synthesis of much of this work, showing the interweavingof all three accounts. The DEFICITperspectiveon gendervariationhas its roots in medieval notions of the chain of being: God above man, above women, above the beasts. Women were seen as a diminished copy of the original Adam. Women's language was thus also an imperfect,deviant,or deficient gloss on men's. Men were bearersof the vital force of language;women, in shrinkingfrom the coarser but virile expressions of men (Jespersen 1922), employed insipid, ladylike usages. Paradoxically, they were damned as ineffectualif they used these, and chastised if they did not (Lakoff 1975). Womenwere also placedin a deficit position in a different way, if only by default,in Labov's 1972 characterizationof male street gangs as the exemplarsof vernacularusage. Cameron 1995, 1996, in her analysis of "verbal hygiene," traces much of the pressure exerted on women to monitor and "cleanup"their deficient languagepractice. The DOMINANCE explanations that arose in the 1970s linked these negative evaluationsof women's languageto theirsocial dominationby men.It wasn't that women were incapableof vital language (cf. West 1995); rather,men took the upperhand in conversation, enacting social dimorphismin echo of physical dimorphism.Thus power was seen as a central feature (O'Barr Atkins 1980), where men crowded women into smallerandless significant space on the linguistic floor by several means:by theirinterruptionsandoverlaps (Zimmerman West 1975, West & Zimmerman1983); by failing to takeup women's conversational gambits (Fishman 1983); by volume of words (Swacker 1975, Spender 1980); or by their semanticderogationof women (Shultz 1975). Feministsof the 1970s and 1980s soughtto reclaim women'splace as different butequal linguistic participants,advancingargumentsof women's superiorityin certainlinguistic domains. Under the DIFFERENCEapproach,women were cited as betterconversationalists,forusing elicitory strategiesthatoperatedto raisethe level of conversationfor all participants(Jenkins& Cheshire 1990, Cheshire & Jenkins 1991), as well as for seeking rapport,nurturing,or collaboratingin language, in contrastto men's one-upmanship(Tannen 1990). The theory was advanced that women and men learneddifferentbehaviors as part of their social differentiation,from playgroups onward (Maltz & Borker 1982, Coates 1986, Tannen 1990, Thorne 1993); and that they shouldn't therefore be blamed for expressingtheirsocialized roles, but thateach sex shouldcome to value the style of the other (Tannen 1990). Language in Society 28:2 (1999)

277

VICTORIA

L. BERGVALL

Critics of this "difference"approachpointed out that such separate-butequal, assign-no-blame approach,thoughvalorizing women's contributions,effectively downplayed social realityin which difference was not equallyvalued ortolerated(Henley Kramarae1991, Troemel-Ploetz1991, de Francisco1991, Freed 1992, Uchida 1992). The differenceexplanationeffectively masks the disruptionof equalitywhen a sharer/nurturermeets with a turn-nabbingone-upper in conversation:The social positionof male dominanceplaces disequilibrating thumbon the scales of just andequalconversation.Note, however,Tannen'slater discussions (1993a, 1994a,b,c) of the non-exclusivity of the dominanceand difference approaches. The 1990s raised the term "deviance"in a special light. Given a two-cultures difference approach,womenwere no longerviewed as merelyaberrantor defective copies of men; they might claim their own distinct linguistic domain. But datafromcloser examinationof intra-categoryvariation(e.g. Eckert1990, Freed 1996) called into question the generalizabilityof principlesdrawnfrom the study of predominantlywhite, middle-class, North Americanand Europeanwomen: Couldthe behaviorof all women be accountedforby one culturaldomain?What then of a woman who acted outside the boundsof this groupof otherwomen?In sense, she was now doublydeviant:notmale,noryet fully female.Furthermore, studies of women andmen in othercultures(e.g. Hall 1996) challengedthe twoculturemode as overly simplistic, demandin a new examinationof the source and effect of gender variationin language one that could account for crossculturalvariation,both within and acrossgenderandculturalboundaries.Bing Bergvall 1996 call this move towardincorporatingDIVERSITY, recognitionof the continuumof humans'genderedpractices. Meanwhile,in otherfields psychological, sociological, anthropological,historical, and biological there was growing dissatisfaction with ESSENTIALIST differenceapproachesto the studyof gender (e.g. Lewontin et al. 1984, Connell 1987, West & Zimmerman1987, C. Epstein 1988, Scott 1988, Gal 1989, Butler 1990, 1993, J.Epstein 1990, Gordon1991, Bem 1993, Thorne 1993, Lorber1994, Nicholson 1994, Crawford1995, West & Fenstermaker1995). These theorists began slowly to influence linguisticresearchon gender. ASCENDANCY THE

OF

THE

LOCAL

AND

PRACTICAL:

COFP

The CofP approachadvanced by Eckert & McConnell-Ginet 1992a,b, 1995 drawingon Lave & Wenger1991,Wenger1998 played a significant role in this new assessment of variationand deviance. The CofP theory centers on the assumptionof variabilityin genderedpractices and identities, challenging the dualized differencesbetweenputativelyhomogeneousgroupsof females vs. males. It emphasizes the acts of becoming gendered,of moving from peripheralor novice participationin linguistic action to a central or more experiencedenactment, 278


A COMPREHENSIVE

THEORY OF LANGUAGE

AND GENDER

with a sharedrepertoireof linguistic resources (cf. Wenger 1998:76). This finegrained approachallows researchersto study nuances within the categories of "women" and "men," "girls and "boys." For example, Eckert & McConnellGinet's 1995 analysis of the teenagers' language at Belten High demonstrated how the semantics of labeling patterns("jocks"vs. "burnouts")revealed overt social categorization. Meanwhile, phonological variants gave evidence, on a mostly unconscious plane, of the students'allegiances and alliances the constructionof their relative positions within a complex of genderand social class. Eckert& McConnell-Ginet1992burgedgenderresearchersto do severalthings: (3) a. Recognize thatgenderis not fixed and pre-existing a dynamic verb ratherthan a static noun. b. Considerhow gender interactswith other aspects of social identity (e.g. class, race, ethnicity, andage), ratherthantakingit as an "additive"variable,easily abstractablefrom person'sotheridentities. c. Challenge prematuregeneralizationof the assumptionsaboutgendervariations based on studies of small (usually Western,middle-class) populations. d. Share research with other gender theoristsfrom other fields. e. Undertakelocal studies of communities across a broaderrange of social settings, countries, and languages.

Thusthey recognized thatdiversitywithincategorieswas not merely noise in the system, but a naturalresult of membershipin a number of overlapping social communitiesof practicethat must be accountedfor by theory. was drawnto this perspective, as were others, by the way in which it foregroundsthe culturalembeddednessof the notion o genderas inextricablylinked to otherpersonaland social attributes.As Eckertnotes (1989:247), "Genderdifferencesareexceedingly complex, particularlyin society anderawherewomen have been moving self-consciously into the marketplaceand calling traditional roles into question."CofP is well suited to addressthe complexity of the crosscurrentsof modernWesternandothersocieties wheregenderroles arein flux and under challenge; where group members might constructdiffering practices in responseto differingsocial opportunitiesandsettings, such as work within nontraditional fields (e.g. McElhinny's 1993 study of female police officers, or Bergvall's 1996a work on female engineeringstudents);or where young people are respondingto shifting social expectations e.g. Bucholtz's studies of the language of female nerds (in this collection) and of the use of AAVE by white students(1997). It is not surprisingthat the CofP perspective works so well to explain the constructionandenactmentof genderinthe studiesamongadolescentsby Bucholtz andby Eckert McConnell-Ginet.Thatis precisely the kind of setting for which CofP was designed, in which learnersor novices apprenticethemselves to (or resist) the acquisitionof genderand othernorms in short, education.However, for the adult settings of Ehrlich, Freed, and Meyerhoff (in the articles of this collection) the explanatoryfit may be less than perfect, because the issues here seem to focus less on theacquisitionof skills or practices,andmoreon the display Language in Society 28:2 (1999)

279

VICTORIA

L. BERGVALL

and reification of practicethroughlanguage and other semiotic systems. CofP seems less ableto accountfor the social ascriptionswhich, at this stage of life, are more pre-existingthanimmediatelyunderconstruction(though they are subject to constantrefinement,challenge etc.) TENSIONS

BETWEEN

PARTICULARS

AND

UNIVERSALS

The broad applicabilityof any theoryor account o gender has been the subject of recent debate. Researchers have carefully cautioned against assuming that "women" or "men"the world over behave the same (e.g. Cameron & Coates 1988, Eckert & McConnell-Ginet 1992b, Freed 1994). Eckert & McConnellGinet 1992b warn against the specific dangers of prematureor excessive generalization: It may put off close examination of complex linguistic practices and their significance in the community;it may lead to focus on conformity, rather than on intra-gendervariation or challenge; and it may distract from more interestingquestions about the use and reflection of language in the constructionof the complex of gender difference and genderrelations. Eckert & McConnell-Ginetarguethat "thecontent of gender categories and their connections to linguistic behaviorcan only be determinedby ethnographic study"(1992b:485; see also this collection). They assert that decontextualized studyof gendervariationandassumptionsof pre-existinggendercategoriescould yield no real understandingof why thereis variationandwhat it means: ... if we search for patternsin language dataunconnectedto the practices of particularcommunities,we can at best get correlationalinformation,and can neveroffer explanatoryaccounts.... basic beginningin the searchfor valid generalizationswith some explanatorysignificance must be the examination of a wide varietyof local communitiesof practice,along with serious considerationof apparentexceptions to candidategeneralizations.(This collection,

p. 190.)

However, Holmes 1996 arguespersuasively that the particularizationof ethnographicstudy needs to be contextualizedwithin largerquantitativestudies. She points to anotherresearchperspective for understandinggender: the utility of quantitativedata to complementthe many studies of particulargroups and instances.Large-scalequantitativestudies collected across a broadpopulationcan contextualize the individual communities' usages, and augur the direction of change in the use of linguistic variables. It is not clear, within a CofP approach,how one moves from individualcommunitiesto larger-scalepractices.Perhapsone mightspeakof the accretionof all the local communitiesof practiceas constitutingone larger,moreglobal practice; but how does thecrucialCofPrequirementof "mutualengagement"workbeyond local communities?How can we explain the strongbeliefs in binarysex/gender thatariseandare spreadacrosswide stretchesof communitiesandcultures?How do we talkabout widely sharedbeliefs thatdo not seem to be globally discussed? 280


A COMPREHENSIVE

THEORY

OF LANGUAGE

AND

GENDER

Do we point to past smallercommunitieswhere these matterswere debated,and thenpassed throughsuccessive generationsby some culturallymediatedmeans? Ourdrive for deeperunderstandingof the significance of genderpushes us to consider the source and significance of gender variation.One way to do this, following the practiceof autonomousformal linguistics, is to attemptto distill fundamentalprinciples,statedin precise andthustestable claims, and thento test them. Holmes 1993 carefully formulates six candidate universals regarding language andgenderthatshe proposesto be tested more thoroughlyfor theirpossible cross-culturalapplicability(see Holmes's article for numerouscitations to supportthese generalizations): develop differentpatternsof language use. (4) a. b. Women tend to focus on the affective functionsof an interactionmore often thanmen do. c. Women tend to use linguistic devices thatstress solidaritymore often thanmen do. d. Womentend to interactin ways that will maintainand increase solidarity,while (especially in formalcontexts) men tend to interactin ways that will maintainand increase their power and status. e. Womenuse morestandardformsthan men from the same social group in the same social context. f. Women are stylistically more flexible thanmen.

that the first universalis least disputable.In offering the Holmes rest, she recognizes quite clearly that they have been attestedmostly in Western societies; they requireconsiderablecross-culturalresearchif they are to be generalized. Holmes 1993 is very aware of the dangerinherentin proposing generalizations:They may be used to perpetuatestereotypesratherthanto challenge them (see also Freed 1994). As Cameron's 1995 work on "verbalhygiene" details, Lakoff's early introspectivespeculationsabout the natureof women's language (1975) have passed into popularcultureas prescriptionsfor women on how or how not to speak, despite refutationby laterempiricalresearch(e.g. Dubois Crouch1975, Crosby Nyquist 1977, Cameronet al. 1989). Descriptions have been transformedinto prescriptionsembracedby transsexualtrainers,marriage counselors,phone-sex employees, andothers(Bucholtz & Hall 1995). Althoughtherearedangersin seeking generalizations,Holmes 1993 andFreed 1994 capturethe need thatis satisfied by such generalizations:the public yearning after comprehensibleexplanation (evidenced in part by the popularity of books such as Tannen 1990 andGray 1992). This supportsthe common assumption thattheremay be some common groundunderlyingthe linguistic positions of women and men in the world, however variedwithin and across categories. BEYOND

THE

LOCAL:

A REFORMULATION

OF

PERSPECTIVES

Whatwould comprehensiveandcoherenttheoryof genderencompass? While consideringthe explanatorypower of the CofP theory for this collection of papers, recalledthe quotationfrom Shakespearenoted above, and began to conLanguage in Society 28:2 (1999)

281

VICTORIA

L. BERGVALL

siderhow it mightbe used to focus on differentaspectsof gender:what is inborn, what is achieved, and what is thrustupon us. The CofP approachfocuses on the middleaspect theperformativeconstructionandachievementof genderedidenbe in two aspects of gender. The first aspect of gender, that which arises (or is believed to arise) from innateness,is usuallyconceivedintermsof dichotomizedandoppositionalfemale/ male sex (gender)differences. Recent advances in biology, genetics, and neurophysiology have providedrelevantnew research,e.g. in thestudyof the effects of hormones on sex determinationof fetuses, and in new technologies that allow study of the living brain.But Fausto-Sterling1992, Bing Bergvall 1996, Blum 1997, andotherspoint out thatthe reportsof findingsof binarysex-baseddifferences are themselvescomplex social constructionswhich demandclose andcritical analysis, as will be discussed in more detail below. The thirdaspectof gender,thatwhich is thruston us by social expectation,is especially well illustratedin the papers in this collection. Such work demands thatwe considerandclarifytheforceof thesocially ascribednatureof gender:the assumptionsandexpectationsof (oftenbinary)ascribedsocial roles againstwhich any performanceof genderis constructed,accommodatedto, or resisted. will argue here that this three-partview of gender better accounts for the varietyof gendered linguistic practicesthatis seen in the articles of this collection and in other recent work. As notedabove, the CofP approachfits well with Bucholtz's account of adolescentsin school which focuses on the social constructionof local grouppractices,more than on the genderascriptionsto which the groupresponds(since nerds are also subjectto stereotypicbeliefs). It is clear thathernerdssee themselves a powerfulagentsin the definitionof who they are, and what their norms and standardswill be often in liberatingopposition to expectationsimposed by other social groupingsthat appearvery limiting to intelligent women. These women constructthemselves as a coherentcommunityof practice via their mutua engagementin negotiateddiscourse, e.g. in distinction to "Trekkies";but they also retain their individuality,and markthemselves as core or peripheralmembersvia theirteasing conversation.Carrie'srole as a liminalmember the "culturalandlinguisticbroker"for the group illustratesthe flexibility of the CofP approach:She clearlyserves as bridge between different communities,andherlinguistic practicesillustratehow communitiesare always shifting and constructingnew meanings. Incontrast,the society in VanuatuthatMeyerhoffanalyzesemploys linguistic forms, such as sore 'sorry',alongtraditionalgenderlines. Of thearticleshere,her analysis reports what appearsto be the strongest expression of the continued constructionof behaviorsthatfit ascribed,dualized roles that oppose the women's sphereto thatof men.This is apparentlya traditionallyorganizedsociety that perceives basic, very differentsocio-sexual roles and domains:the common do282


A COMPREHENSIVE

THEORY OF LANGUAGE

AND GENDER

mestic domain for women, as comparedto the public domain of men. Women achieve and increase their social status by the use of the linguistic item sore constructedin nurturingways; but the men achieve social status throughother means using sore as an expression of "missing someone," or to apologize to them. Is this because the society is fairly homogeneous, no buffeted by other social stratifications?Whataboutage, power hierarchies,or the influence of outsiders?One analysis might be that the openings for contestationof ascribedgender roles based on sexual dualities, and their re-constructionor re-negotiation, arise more frequentlyin societies where differentsocial currentsascribe or valorize different social roles, as in Eckert & McConnell-Ginet's study of Belten High (1995). For example, the cross-cuttingof class with gender in Belten High provides opportunities for seeing gender as mutable and susceptible to (re)construction. Ehrlich'sworkillustratesthe interplayof ascribedandconstructedroles against the backgroundof physical/sexual involvement. The rapetrialdefendantand his representativespeak as if women at the university (and among the tribunal)belong to one cohesive group of "women"in opposition to "men";the two men thereforeexpect the women of the tribunalto be more sympatheticand partial toward the female plaintiffs. Ironically,a closer examinationof the language of the woman faculty tribunalmember,with her series of interrogativestatements, suggests the opposite: that she constructsfor the plaintiffs story of lack of resistance(andthus assumedconsent), and so creates a model of genderpractice in which the women defendants'actions are reinterpretedvia language as a deficient practiceof womanhood, set in contrastto the woman professor's expectationsof appropriatepractice. Freed's work also suggests an interplayof ascribedand constructedcommunities, withbiology againas thebackdrop:Herethe ascribedcommunityis thatof "pregnantwomen" who, on the whole, derive theircommonalitynot via mutual engagementin negotiateddiscourse,but fromphysical featuresdefinitely arising from sexual difference. Communitiesof discoursepracticearise not among the pregnantwomen, but among those who engage in discourse aroundand toward pregnantwomen. Doctors, in their treatmentand naming of pregnancyand its complications,constituteone such community,negotiating meaningin the joint enterpriseof pregnancycare.Furthermore,women are more often OBJECTSthan mutually engaged SUBJECTS in the public interactionswith doctors and others, who obviously share a repertoireof discourse and actions (touching women, commenting on theircondition, asking personally invasive questions). Over all, the articles in this volume illustratewhat see as the next stage in understandingthe explanatoryforce of thecommunitiesof practiceapproach:the necessity of seeing theconstructionof these particularpracticesagainstthe backdropof strongsocial stereotypesand ascriptionsabout gender,in complex association with biology. Language in Society 28:2 (1999)

283

VICTORIA CHALLENGES

TO

COFP:

L. BERGVALL

IDEOLOGIES

THRUST

UPON

US

How do we study these largersocietal ascriptionsin principledway? Butler (1990:33), who stronglyemphasizestheperformativeaspectof gender(cf. Bourdieu 1991 on habitus)notes, "Genderis the repeatedstylizationof the body, set of repeatedacts within a highly rigidregulatoryframethat congeal over time to producethe appearanceof substance,of naturalsort of being." local approach to genderlacks principledmeans to analyzethe larger-scaleformationsof the "insistentandinsidiouspractice,sustainedandregulatedby varioussocial means." Despite its many virtues,it is not clear how a "localized"CofP approachcan derive systematicaccountfor gendernormsestablishedpriorto the local practice of gender,at the more global level of ideology and hegemony. While it is critical to examinethe local practicesthatillustratecomplianceto, alliancewith, or resistance to larger-scalenorms, study of how certainideologies are thrust upon us demands a more general approach.As Woolard & Schieffelin note (1994:72), we muststudytherelationshipof "themicrocultureof communicative action to political economic considerationsof power and social inequality,confrontingmacrosocialconstraintson language and behavior." There is growinginterestin how ideologies operatelinguistically,and much of the workis drivenby CriticalDiscourseAnalysis (e.g. Fairclough1989, 1992, 1995, Gal 1989, Wodak 1989, Hodge & Kress 1993, van Dijk 1993, Woolard Schieffelin 1994, Fairclough Wodak 1997). growing numberof studies are focusing on the role of language in the ideological constructionof gender (e.g. 1995, 1998, Bergvall 1996b, McElhinny 1997, Eggins ledema 1997). Intrinsicto the latter set of studies is the notion that genderoperateson both local and more global levels. As van Dijk notes (1993:255), powerful elites have special access to discourse; they exert powerful decision-makingand linguistic control via courts, law, police enforcement,media,etc. We must look beyond local domains to explorethegatekeepingpowersthatthe elite haveforcontrollingdiscourse.Critical DiscourseAnalysis takes a differentapproachfromCofP,examining how ideology is constructedand imposed from above, often through the control of the media.As Talbot 1995 argues,in heranalysis of the "syntheticsisterhood"organized aroundtheconsumptionof teenbeauty magazines,mediadiscourseis powerful andone-sided. Unlike the local CofP,which demandsinteraction,the mass mediaimpose images andconstructionsof behavior.Certainlyconsumershave a choice to buyornotbuy a bookormagazine,to watchornotwatchaTVprogram; and theirchoice of what they consume will affect laterofferings. But once consumersbuy orconsume discourseproduct,theirlinguisticchoices arelimited to reactionto the media event. Talbot(1995:143) notes that,in mass media, producerand interpreterare sharplydivided and distant from each other ... Addressing a mass audience imposes on mass-media producersthe need to 284


A COMPREHENSIVE

THEORY

OF LANGUAGE

AND

GENDER

constructan implied reader(or viewer) as addressee.At the same time, it imposes on actual mass-mediareadersor viewers the need to negotiate with the constructedpositions. This puts media producer in a very powerful position. As "professionalpractitioners," they control the rights to production, determine wha should be included, and decide how to couch these ideas so as to "assign assumed shared experiences and commonsens attitudes." Of course, non-elite consumersare farfrom powerless in theirconsumptionof such texts and ideologies (as detailedby, among others, Radwa 1987, Houston & Kramarae1991, Talbot 1995, Bergvall & Remlinger 1996, and de Francisco 1997). Indeed, hegemonic power is not monolithic and unassailable:There are multiple constructionsto act within or against (Bakhtin 1981, van Dijk 1993, Hall 1995). Yet the power of mass media to shape general assumptions to create ascriptionsof "appropriate"genderroles must be examined by those studying the interrelationshipof language and gender. The analysis of these ascriptive practices, e.g. via CriticalDiscourse Analysis, provides a context for studying what Cameron(1997:31) calls "institutionalcoerciveness":genderconstruction beyond the bounds of local communities of practice. The role of modern science in the productionof genderfalls underthis study of ideology as well, becauseof the statusof science as anexplanatoryforce in the Westernworld. Science maintainsits own practicesthathelp reifydualities:Spare, "elegant"equations are perceived as more forceful and explanatory, and stark reports of difference are more easily and readily reportedin the popularmedia thanare gray-shadedcontinua.Here, ideology andbiology overlap. MORE OF

THE

CHALLENGES

TO

COFP:

THE

CONTINUED

SIGNIFICANCE

BODY

The notion thatbiology plays role in gender variationseems at first absurdly obvious; we need only considerthe relentless social differentiationthatbegins at birth,at the moment of the recognition of genital status from namingpatterns, to color coding, to toilet practices, to the imposition of many other social norms and expectations. However, the investigation of innate sexual differences has been problematizedin the past few decades with the increased understandingof the complex interactionsof genetics andhormonesin the productionof a baby, as well as the forces of social constructionof gender that begin to operate even before the child is born.The investigation of this complex interactioncertainly involves the local practicesof genderconstruction;butit also demandsan investigation into the practices of modernscience and their public promulgation and the belief systems that drive both - a task that exceeds the bounds of CofP approachfocused on local constructions.What is innate, what is socially constructedlocally, and what is ideologically constructed:All three avenues of investigationmust be used in the study of the body and its interactionwith gender. Language in Society 28:2 (1999)

285

VICTORIA

L. BERGVALL

Researchersinvestigatingthe role of innate sexual differentiationhave created a more detailed view of the interplayof our genetics andhormoneswith modem medical practicesin the productionof what areusually seen as the "two"sexes 1992, 1993, influence 1994). of humanhormonesmay determineto what extent chromosomalXs and Ys are played out in physical form,but even those factors are affected by differencesin proportionsof hormones.It is not simply that females are awashin estrogenand men in testosterone;timing and amountvary,creating greaterrange of difference thanthepublic generallyacknowledges situationmaskedby physicians' interventionas they elect to "fix"what they see as nature'smistakes. From the womb to thebrain,new technologyhas intensified the investigation of sexual differentiation.We might expect sex/gender variationin the brain(as the site of productionof language) to affect linguistic output, leading to some innate influence on languagevariation.Indeed,suchclaims have been made, e.g. by Chambers1992, 1995, who cites the findingof Maccoby Jacklin(1974:354) that "girls have greaterverbal ability thanboys" as among the "sex differences that are fairly well established."Chambersarguesthat small but statistically significantdifferences between women andmen,as groups,areemphasized by social forces. But Fausto-Sterling(1992:30) notes that, when Jacklin 1979 recalculatedthe sex variationusing a new meta-analyticapproachto re-evaluate the magnitudeof groupdifferences, she concluded that the variancewas much less significant: "Itteeters on the brinkof oblivion." Researchto determinethe extent and natureof gender variationin the brain persists (e.g. Kimura 1992, Shaywitz et al. 1995). Much media comment was provoked by the Shaywitz report of finding statistically significant sex-based variationin the linguisticprocessing areasof the brain.However, a closer analysis of their research(Bing Bergvall 1996, Bergvall 1996b) raises questions both about the rangeof variationwithin the categoriesof women and men, and abouttherobustnessof thevariationin thefirstplace. Shaywitzet al. investigated three differentlinguistic tests (orthographic,phonological, and semantic), and found significant variationonly in the phonological; and although they report strongsex-baseddifferences "women"showed morebilateralhemisphericprocessing in theirlinguistic functions,while "men"were stronglyleft-hemisphere lateralized their conclusion emphasizes the findings of 11 of the 19 women, setting aside the much less bilateralizedactivity of eight of the women. Bergvall 1996b argues that biology and ideology intersect in the reporting of these researchresults,to some degreein the scientific reportsand to greater degree in the public media. That study details how ideologies of difference were fostered by relatively simple linguistic manipulation of text, e.g. by removing preverbaland prenominalmodifiers (e.g. tend, many, more likely) and by statingclaims in convoluted syntax which hedged the statistical findings of the scientists: 286


A COMPREHENSIVE

THEORY OF LANGUAGE

AND GENDER

Althoughwe do not want to claim that phonological processing makes no demand on right hemispheresites in males, we wish to emphasize that in a site uniquely serving phonologica processing, the IFG [inferior frontal gyrus], females devote greaterrighthemisphericresourcesto the task. (Shaywitz et al. 1995:609; italics supplied). The abstractof the articlestatesthe variationless ambiguously(in syntacticterms) and more categorically During phonologica tasks, brain activation in males is lateralized to the left inferior frontal gyrus regions; infemales the pattern of activation is very different, engaging morediffuseneuralsystemsthatinvolve both the left and right inferiorfrontalgyrus. (607) Thus reportsof differencesdiscernibleat the level of statisticalanalysis areoverstated in more categorical terms, implying that "men"use the left brain while "women"use both sides of the brain in "very different"ways of processing language. Reportsin the media played up the aspect of categorical differences between women and men, characterizingthe difference in essentialist terms; e.g., "men andwomenwill neverbe like each otherbecausethey use theirbrainsdifferently" (Jet 1995:15).Anotherpopulartext aboutgenderdifferencesin the brain(Moir Jessel 1991:8) concludes on a similar note: Men and women could live morehappily,understandand love each other better,organizethe worldto bettereffect, if we acknowledgedourdifferences.We could then build our lives on the twin pillars of our distinct sexual identities. Note the explicit separationinto two incommensurablecategories of MEN and WOMEN, underlinedby the final phrase, "the twin pillars of our distinct sexual identities." Fausto-Sterlingcites many complications in the interpretationof the data on the effects of the innateon genderdetermination.She concludes: Male and female babies may be born. But those complex gender-loadedindividuals we call men and women are produced. The complex assembly line includes all of our socialization processes of which the acquisitionof scientific knowledge is but one. Since our cultureoffers a privileged place to science, however, it is an especially importantone. (1992:270) Because of the social position of science as a dominantideology in much of the modernWesternworld, linguists working on gender must continually question how science constructs its research questions, and how research findings are constructedandpresentedbothto other scientists andto the public. Science is not value-free;it views thebody throughsocially constructedlenses, so we mustturn our linguistic efforts towardunderstandinghow that interpretiveprocess works. Language in Society 28:2 (1999)

287

VICTORIA

L. BERGVALL

The analysis of the role of biology (and biologists) in gender variationwill extendbeyond studyof some mutuallyengaged,local CofPof scientistsin their labs and at their conferences.It will take considerabletextualanalysis to deconof work:the publicationof results in tific journalsreadby morethantheirimmediatepeers (suchasNature,thejournal in which the Shaywitz article appeared),as well as the reportingandinterpretation of their researchresults in the mass media. As argued above, much of the "conversation"aboutgenderat this level is one-sided,placingideological control in the handsof few. Thus comprehensivetheory of gendermust have some way of accountingfor the continued sedimentationof differencearoundthe body (Butler 1993) in the form of oppositional dualisms, and for the reassertion of dualityin the face of so much evidence for genderoverlapand continuaof form and practice.This will be a question not merely of assessing biological givens, but also of investigating the local and ideological constructions of biological variation. CONCLUSIONS

Despite a search for coherentexplanations,the greatarrayof language andgender variationmay not ultimatelylend itself to simple explanations,nor yield its secretsthroughsingularapproaches;it may not be possible to distill a limited set of overarchingcross-culturalgeneralizations.But to arriveat any full andcomprehensivecharacterizationof gender,the studyof genderandlanguagedemands theintersectionof bothmacro-andmicro-levelanalyses multi-methodological approach,as is arguedby Holmes 1993, 1996, Wodak Benke 1996, andothers. We need diverse, thoughtfulresearchperspectivesto triangulateon this manyfaceted issue. Without careful attentionto local practice, we cannot understandhow individuals shape and interprettheirgenderand theirsocial practice with the available linguisticresources.Withoutbroadsurveysandcollections, we cannotknow the significanceof individualuses theconvergence,divergence,andmovement of social practices.Withoutthe broaderstudies of ideologies at the textual and global levels, we cannotunderstandhow interpretationsof gender by gatekeeping elites aregeneratedor spread.Indeed,we need morestudiesof local communities of practice:of the local co-construction sites where individuals wrestle with, andchallenge,the definitions andthe integrationof the different aspectsof their lives within their communities. But we also need theories that extend beyond local communities of practice:There are forces largerthan local communities, where influences go beyond mutualengagementin the shaping of public opinions and ideas. It is absolutely critical that we hear the most significant messages of CofP research:to preparefor variation,to be wary of generalization,to look for counterexamplesand refutation.But while we must ALWAYS check our generaliza288


COMPREHENSIVE

THEORY

OF LANGUAGE

AND

GENDER

tions againstthepossibilitiesof variationandrefutation(especially in cultureswe do not know well), we must also think about how communitiescohere into larger aggregatesthroughbroadlyheld social andculturalvalues, invoked and reifiedin internationalmedia. We must studyhow expectationsof gender are not just local, but play off of larger societal expectations and stereotypes, whetherfounded or unfounded. At the end, it may be thatthe only truly global generalizationsarethatgender is a point of differentiationin societies, reflected in and constructed through language; and that there is some degree of expectation of difference based on societies' relentless dualization,particularlysedimentedaroundthe body in the practiceof procreation/recreation.But this too is hypothesisthat remains to be tested.Whatevershape comprehensivetheoryof language andgenderwill take, innateness,local practice, and ideology will all play significant roles. NOTES

I would like to give thanksto JanetHolmes for organizingthe original forumin which the paper developed, and for her very helpful comments;to Sally McConnell-Ginetand Penny Eckertfor their sustained support, throughtheir work, of me and others in the field; and to all three of them plus Alice Freed, MiriamMeyerhoff, and Susan Ehrlich for stimulatingcomments and discussion of these issues. Thanksalso go to Mary Talbotand Craig Waddellfor comments on an earlier draft.All errorsremain my own responsibility. As MaryTalbotnotes (p.c.), the quote on greatnesscomes froma speech by Malvolio in Twelfth Night, where he is readinga letter intendedas a joke on him. This does not detractfrom the utility of the quote as an organizingdevice for the study of gender and language, though perhapsit calls into question the means by which one can achieve greatness.

REFERENCES

Bakhtin, Mikhail M. (1981). Discourse in the novel. In his The dialogic imagination, 259-422. Austin: University of Texas Press. Bem, Sandra(1993). The lenses of gender: Transformingthe debate on sexual inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press. Bergvall,VictoriaL. (1996a). Constructingand enactinggenderthroughdiscourse:Negotiating multiple roles as female engineering students.In Bergvall et al. (eds.), 173-201. (1996b). Divided minds:Genderpolarizationin brainandlanguageresearch.InWarneret al. (eds.), 11-23. et al. (1996), eds. Rethinkinglanguage and gender research:Theoryand practice. London: Longman. Remlinger, KathrynA. (1996). Reproduction,resistance and gender in educationaldiscourse: The role of criticaldiscourse analysis. Discourse & Society 7:453-79. Bing, JanetM., Bergvall,VictoriaL. (1996). The questionof questions: Beyond binarythinking.In Bergvall et al. (eds.), 1-30. Blum, Deborah(1997). Sex on the brain: Thebiological differences betweenmen and women. New York:Viking. Bourdieu,Pierre(1991). Language and symbolicpower. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity Press. Brown, Penelope (1980). How and why are women more polite: Some evidence from a Mayan community.In McConnell-Ginetet al. (eds.), 111-49. (1993). Gender,politeness, and confrontationin Tenejapa.In Tannen(ed.), 1993b:144-62. Bucholtz, Mary (1995). From mulatta to mestiza: Passing and the linguistic reshaping of ethnic identity.In Hall & Bucholtz (eds.), 351-74. Language in Society 28:2 (1999)

289

VICTORIA

L. BERGVALL

(1997). Beyond covert prestige: Genderand identity among white users of AAVE. Paper presented at the 1997 Linguistic Society of Americameeting, Chicago. ______ et al. (1994), eds. Culturalperformances:Proceedings of the ThirdBerkeley Womenand Language Conference.Berkeley,CA: BerkeleyWomen andLanguageGroup. & Hall, Kira(1995). Introduction:Twentyyears afterLanguageand woman'splace. In Hall _____, & Bucholtz (eds.), 1-22. Butler,Judith(1990). Gendertrouble:Feminismand the subversionof identity.London:Routledge. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of "sex. London:Routledge. Cameron,Deborah(1988). Introduction.In Coates & Cameron(eds.), 3-12. (1995). Verbalhygiene. London:Routledge. (1996). The language-gender interface:Challengingco-optation. In Bergvall et al. (eds.), 31-53. (1997). Theoreticaldebates in feminist linguistics: Questions of sex and gender.In Wodak (ed.), 21-36. et al. (1987). Lakoff in context: The social & linguistic functions of the tag questions. In Coates & Cameron,74-93. Coates, Jennifer(1988). Some problemsin the sociolinguistic explanationof sex differ_____, ences. In Coates & Cameron(eds.), 13-26. Chambers,J. K. (1992). Linguistic correlatesof gender and sex. English World-Wide13:173-218. (1995). Sociolinguistictheory:Linguisticvariationand itssocial significance.Oxford:Blackwell. Cheshire, Jenny, Jenkins, Nancy (1991). Gender issues in the GCSE Oral English Examination, Part II. Languageand Education5:19-40. Coates, Jennifer(1986). Women,men,and language. London:Longman. (1998), ed. Language and gender: A reader. Oxford:Blackwell. Cameron,Deborah(1988), eds. Womenin theirspeech communities.London:Longman. Connell, RobertW. (1987). Gender andpower. Stanford,CA: StanfordUniversity Press. Crawford,Mary(1995). Talkingdifference:Ongender and language. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage. Crosby,Faye, Nyquist,Linda(1977). The female register:An empiricalstudyof Lakoff's hypotheses. Language in Society 6:313-22. De Francisco,Victoria(1991). Review of Tannen1990. Language in Society 21:319-24. (1997). Gender,power, and practice,or, puttingyourmoney (and yourresearch)whereyour mouth is. In Wodak(ed.), 37-56. Dubois, Betty, Crouch,Isabel(1975). The questionof tag questionsin women's speech:They don't really use more of them, do theyl? Language in Society 4:289-94. Duckett,John, Baskin,Laurence(1993). Genitoplastyforintersexanomalies.EuropeanJournalof Pediatry 152 (Suppl. 2), S80-S84. Eckert, Penelope (1989). Jocks and burnouts:Social categories and identityin the high school. New York:Teacher'sCollege Press. (1990). The whole woman: Sex andgenderdifferencesin variation.Language Variationand Change 1:245-67. McConnell-Ginet,Sally (1992a). Communitiesof practice:Wherelanguage,gender,and power all live. In Hall et al. (eds.), 89-99. (1992b). Thinkpracticallyand look locally: Language and gender as communitybased practice.Annual Review of Anthropology21:461-90. [Reprintedin Camille Roman et al. (eds.), The woman and language debate: A sourcebook, 432-60. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1994.] (1995). Constructedmeaning, constructedselves: Snapshots of language, gender, and class from Belten High. In Hall & Bucholtz (eds.), 469-507. Eggins, Suzanne, Iedema, Rick (1997). Difference without diversity: Semantic orientationand ideology in competing women's magazines.In Wodak(ed.), 165-96. Epstein,CynthiaFuchs (1988). Deceptivedistinctions:Sex, gender and thesocial order. New Haven: Yale University Press. Epstein,Julia(1990). Either/or-neither/both:Sexualambiguityand the ideology of gender.Genders 7:99-142. Fairclough,Norman(1989). Language and power. London:Longman. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge:Polity. 290


COMPREHENSIVE

THEORY

OF LANGUAGE

AND

GENDER

(1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman. , & Wodak,Ruth(1997). Criticaldiscourse analysis. In Teunvan Dijk (ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinaryintroduction,II:Discourse as social interaction, 258-84. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage. Fausto-Sterling,Anne (1992). Mythsof gender: Biological theories about womenand men. Rev. edn. New York:Basic Books. Fishman, Pamela (1983). Interaction:The work women do. In Thorneet al. (eds.), 89-101. Freed, Alice (1992). We understandperfectly: A critiqueof Tannen'sview of cross-sex communication. In Hall et al. (eds.), 144-52. (1994). cross-culturalanalysis of language and gender.In Bucholtz et al. (eds.), 197-204. (1996). Language and genderresearch in an experimental setting. In Bergvall et al. (eds.), 54-76. Gal, Susan (1989). Between speech and silence: The problematicsof researchon language and gender. In Micaela di Leonardo(ed.), Genderat the crossroads of knowledge: Feministanthropology in the postmodernera, 175-203. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress. (1992). Language,gender,andpower:An anthropologicalview. In Hall et al. (eds.), 153-61. Gordon,Linda(1991). On "difference."Genders 10:91-111. Gray, John (1992). Men are from Mars, women are from Venus: practical guide for improving communicationand getting whatyou want in your relationships.New York:HarperCollins. Hall, Kira(1995). Lip service on the fantasy lines. In Hall & Bucholtz (eds.), 181-216. (1996). Shifting gender positions among Hindi-speaking hijras. In Bergvall et al. (eds.), 228-66. et al. (1992), eds. Locating power: Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Womenand Language Conference.Berkeley,CA: Berkeley Women andLanguage Group. Bucholtz, Mary (1995), eds. Gender articulated:Language and the socially constructed New York:Routledge. self. Henley, Nancy, & Kramarae,Cheris (1991). Miscommunication, power, and gender. In Nikolas Coupland et al. (eds.), Miscommunicationand problematic talk, 18-43. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hodge, Robert, Kress, Gunther(1993). Language as ideology, 2nd edn. London:Routledge. Holmes, Janet(1993). Women's talk:The questionof sociolinguistic universals.AustralianJournal of Communication20:3.125-49. [Reprintedin Coates (ed.), 1998:461-83.] (1996). Women's role in languagechange: place for quantification.In Warneret al. (eds.), 313-30. Houston, Marcia, & Kramarae,Cheris (1991). Speaking from silence: Methods of silencing and of resistance. Discourse & Society 2:387-99. Hughes, EverettC. (1945). Dilemmas and contradictionsof status. AmericanJournal of Sociology 50:353-54. Jacobs, Sue-Ellen, Cromwell, Jason (1992). Visions and revisions of reality:Reflections on sex, sexuality, gender,and gendervariance.Journal of Homosexuality23:4.43-69. Jacklin, Carol N. (1979). Epilogue. In Michelle A. Wittig & Anne C. Petersen (eds.), Sex-related differences in cognitive function: Developmental issues, 357-71. New York:Academic Press. Jenkins, Nancy, Cheshire, Jenny (1990). Gender issues in the GCSE OralEnglish Examination, Part I. Languageand Education 4:261-92. Jespersen,Otto (1922). The woman. In his Language:Its nature,development,and origins, 237-54. London:Allen & Unwin. Jet (1995). Why women and men cannot be like each other.Jet 87 (3 April), 15-16. Joseph, Rhawn(1992). The right brain and the unconscious: Discovering the stranger within. New York:Plenum. Kessler, Suzanne J. (1994). The medical construction of gender: Case management of intersexed infants. In Anne Herrmann& StewartAbigain (eds.), Theorizingfeminism: Parallel trendsin the humanitiesand social sciences, 218-37. Boulder,CO:Westview Press. Kimura,Doreen (1992). Sex differences in the brain.ScientificAmerican267:119-25. Labov,William (1972). Language in the inner city. Philadelphia:University of PennsylvaniaPress. (1991). The intersectionof sex and social class in the course of linguistic change. Language Variationand Change 2:205-54. Lakoff, Robin (1975). Language and woman'splace. New York:Harper& Row. Language in Society 28:2 (1999)

291

VICTORIA

L. BERGVALL

Lave, Jean, & Wenger,Etienne(1991). Situatedlearning:Legitimateperipheralparticipation.Cambridge & New York:CambridgeUniversityPress. Lewontin, RichardC., et al. (1984). Not in our genes: Biology, ideology, and human nature. New York:Pantheon. Lorber,Judith(1994). Paradoxes of gender. New Haven, CT:Yale UniversityPress. Maccoby, EleanorEmmons, & Jacklin,CarolNagy (1974). psychology of differences.Stanford, CA: StanfordUniversityPress. Maltz, DanielA., Borker,Ruth(1982). culturalapproachto male-femalemiscommunication.In John J. Gumperz (ed.), Languageand social identitv, 196-216. Cambridge& New York:Cambridge University Press. Mathieu,Nicole (1989). Identit6sexuelle/sexue/de sexe? InAnne-MarieDaune-Richardet al. (eds.), Categorisation de sexe et constructionsscientifiques, 109-47. Aix-en-Provence: Universite de Provence. [Reprintedand translatedas: Sexual, sexed, and sex-class identities: Three ways of conceptualising the relationshipbetween sex andgender.In Diana Leonard& Lisa Adkins (eds.), Sex in question:Frenchmaterialfeminism,42-71. London:Taylor Francis, 1996.] McConnell-Ginet,Sally (1988). Languageand gender.In FrederickJ. Newmeyer (ed.), Linguistics: TheCambridgesurvey,IV:Language:Thesocioculturalcontext,75-99. Cambridge& New York: CambridgeUniversityPress. et al. (1980), eds. Womenand language in literatureand society. New York:Praeger. McElhinny,Bonnie (1993). Weall wear the blue: Language, gender,andpolice work.Dissertation, StanfordUniversity. (1997). Ideologies of privateandpubliclanguagein sociolinguistics.InWodak(ed.), 106-39. Mendoza-Denton,Norma(1995). Pregnantpauses:Silence andauthorityin the AnitaHill Clarence Thomas hearings. In Hall & Bucholtz (eds.), 51-66. Moir,Anne, & Jessel, David (1991). Brainsex: Therealdifferencebetweenmenand women.2ndedn. New York:Delta. Morris,Desmond (1998). Thehumansexes. Six-partTV series, broadcastin the US on the Learning Channel,Feb. 1998. Nadeau, RobertL. (1996). S/he brain:Science, sexualpolitics, and the mythsoffeminism. Westport, CT:Praeger. Nicholson, Linda(1994). Interpretinggender.Signs 20:79-105. O'Barr,William, Atkins, Bowman K. (1980). "Women's"languageor "powerless"language?In McConnell-Ginetet al. (eds.), 1980:93-110. Ochs, Elinor(1992). Indexing gender.In AlessandroDuranti& CharlesGoodwin (eds.), Rethinking context: Languageas an interactivephenomenon,335-58. Cambridge& New York:Cambridge UniversityPress. Ochs Keenan,Elinor(1974). Norm-makersand norm-breakers:Uses of speech by menand womenin Malagasycommunity.In RichardBauman& Joel Sherzer(eds.), Explorationsin theethnography of speaking, 125-43. Cambridge& New York:CambridgeUniversity Press. Radway,Janice (1987). Reading the romance: Women,patriarchy,and popular literature.Chapel Hill, NC: Universityof North CarolinaPress. Remlinger, KathrynA. (1995). Production, resistance, and opposition: Studentslinguistically constituting ideologies of gender and sexuality. Unpublished Ph.D. diss., Michigan Technological University. (1997). Keeping it straight:The negotiation of meanings in the constitution of gender and sexuality. Womenand Language 20:1.47-53. Scott, Joan(1988). Deconstructingequality-versus-difference;or, the uses of poststructuralisttheory feminism. Feminist Studies 14:33-50. Shaywitz, Bennett,et al. (1995). Sex differences in the functional organizationof the brain for language. Nature373:607-9. Sherzer,Joel (1987). diversityof voices: Men's and women's speech in ethnographicperspective. In Susan U. Philips et al. (eds.), Language, gender, and sex in comparativeperspective, 95-120. Cambridge& New York:CambridgeUniversityPress. Shultz,Muriel(1975). The semanticderogationof women. In Thorne& Henley (eds.), 1975:64-73. Spender,Dale (1980). Man made language. London: Routledge. Swacker, Margery(1975). The sex of the speakeras a sociolinguistic variable.In Thorne & Henley (eds.), 76-83. 292


COMPREHENSIVE

THEORY

OF LANGUAGE

AND

GENDER

Swann, Joan (1992). Girls, boys, and language. Oxford:Blackwell. Talbot,Mary(1995). synthetic sisterhood:False friends in a teenage magazine. In Hall & Bucholtz (eds.), 143-65. (1998). Language and gender: An introduction.Cambridge:Polity Press. Tannen, Deborah (1990). Youjust don't understand: Womenand men in conversation. New York: Morrow. (1993a). The relativity of linguistic strategies:Rethinkingpower and solidarityin gender and dominance. In Tannen(ed.), 1993b:165-88. (1993b), ed. Genderand conversational interaction.Oxford & New York:OxfordUniversity Press. (1994a). Interpretinginterruptionin discourse. In her Gender and discourse, 53-83. Oxford & New York:OxfordUniversity Press. (1994b). The sex-class-linked framingof talkat work. In Bucholtzet al. (eds.), 1994:712-28. (1994c). Talkingfrom 9 to 5. New York:Morrow. Thome, Barrie(1993). Genderplay: Girls and boys at school. New Brunswick,NJ: RutgersUniversity Press. Henley, Nancy (1975), eds. Languageand sex: Difference and dominance. Rowley, MA: Newbury House , et al. (1983), eds. Language, gender, and society. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Troemel-Ploetz,Senta (1991). Review essay: Selling the apolitical. Discourse Society 2:489-502. Uchida,Aki (1992). When "difference"is "dominance": critiqueof the "anti-power-based"cultural approachto sex differences. Language in Society 21:547-68. van Dijk, Teun A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society 4:249-83. Warner,Natasha,et al. (1996), eds. Gender and belief systems: Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Womenand Language Conference. Berkeley,CA: Berkeley Women and LanguageGroup. Wenger,Etienne (1998). Communitiesof practice. Cambridge& New York:CambridgeUniversity Press. West, Candace (1984). When the doctor is "lady":Power, status, and gender in physician-patient encounters.SymbolicInteraction7:87-106. [Reprintedin Coates (ed.), 1998:396-412.] (1995). Women'scompetence in conversation. Discourse Society 6:107-31. Fenstermaker,Sarah(1995). Doing difference. Gender and Society 9:1.8-37. Zimmerman,Don (1983). Small insults: study of interruptionsin cross-sex conversations between unacquaintedpersons.In Thorneet al. (eds.), 102-17. ~~ (1987). Doing gender. Genderand Society 1:125-51. Wodak, Ruth(1989). Language, power, and ideology. Amsterdam:Benjamins. (1997), ed. Discourse and gender. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage. Benke, Gertraud(1996). Gender as sociolinguistic variable:New perspectives on variation studies.In FlorianCoulmas(ed.), Handbookof sociolinguistics, 127-50. Oxford:Blackwell. Woolard,Katherine,& Schieffelin, Bambi (1994). Languageideology. AnnualReview of Anthropology 23:55-82. Zimmerman,Don, & West,Candace(1975). Sex roles, interruptionsand silences in conversation.In Thorne & Henley (eds.), 105-29.


293

Language & Gender

Recommend Documents