PSY409b
September 18, 2006
Power
and Solidarity in linguistic strategies
By
Paige Kim
Instructions
for this activity are found at:
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy25/g25-oral1.htm
Instructor:
Dr. Leon James
Tannen,
Deborah (1996) Gender & Discourse (
I.
Indirectness
a.
Two
benefits of indirectness
i.
Defensiveness
ii.
Rapport
b.
Cross-cultural
perspectives
i.
Americans
1.
View
indirectness as power
2.
View
women as indirect
ii.
Japanese
1.
Believe
“no” is too threatening
iii.
1.
Women
are seen as direct and men as indirect but men are socially
dominant
II.
Interruption
a.
“Overlap”
i.
Can
show support for the speaker or can contradict
ii.
Overlap
can show symmetry and no domination
1.
i.e.
When both speakers avoid overlap, or if both speakers overlap each other and win
equally
iii.
Overlap
can show dominance
1.
i.e. If one speaker repeatedly overlaps and
the other gives way
b.
How
can you tell whether an overlap is an interruption?
i.
Must
consider everything in context
III.
Silence
versus Volubility
a.
Silence
(alone), is not a sign of powerlessness
b.
Volubility
is not a sign of dominance
i.
Both
can be a result from differences but not a speakers’ intention
c.
Cultural
views vary
d.
You
must also take each different setting into context
IV.
Topic
Raising
a.
Typical
to assume that the speaker who raises the most topics is dominating the
conversation
i.
However,
in Tannen’s study, the dominant speaker did not raise
the most topics
b.
Effect
of topic raising is also an effect of differences in
pausing
c.
Another
linguistic strategy that results from style differences
V.
Adversativeness: Conflict and Verbal
Aggression
a.
Research
has consistently found that male speakers are competitive and more likely to
engage in conflicts whereas females tend to be more cooperative and more likely
to avoid conflict
i.
In
Tannen’s research, it showed that girls and their
cooperation ways of speaking was also a power tactic
ii.
For
boys, they had a lot of aggression and teasing
b.
Cultural
views
i.
Many
cultures view arguing as a pleasurable sign of intimacy
VI.
Conclusion
a.
Power
and solidarity are created in communication
b.
To
understand how speakers use language, consider each case and the
context
Related Links:
1.
Gender differences in communication
http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/2052/genddiff.html
This
was a site completely dedicated to gender and communication. Their point of view on why men and women
talk differently was because of gender.
They also had a completely “black or white” view as to how men and women
talk. Men change topics often,
while women don’t. Men tried to
dominate conversations, whereas women try to let everyone participate. I chose this site because I believe that
this is the stereotypical view of how men and women talk. We don’t take everything case by case,
we just stereotype and believe that men are one way, and women are another. It is a strong difference between the
two sexes.
2.
Gender differences in nonverbal communication
http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Speech/rccs/theory20.htm
I
chose this site because I think nonverbal communication is just as important as
verbal when dealing with power and solidarity. This site explained the differences in
women and men’s gestures (which I found were mostly all true!) I believe that women engage in more
conversational eye contact, and tend to approach others closer whereas men like
personal space and “stare” to initiate power but not engage in eye contact on a
daily habit. I think this is of
course an American view but I still found it interesting because I think
nonverbal communication can sometimes have an even greater effect on dominating
a conversation.
3.
You just don’t understand
http://homestar.org/bryannan/tannen.html
I
have heard of Deborah Tannen before and it was from
her other books that I remember her by.
Her book “You just don’t understand,” was a whole book dedicated to women
and men in conversation. I heard a
lot of positive feedback in it so I was interested in reading a review on the
book. This last site is a review on
Deborah Tannen’s book by Laura Bryannan. From
reading this review, I find that I even more strongly support Tannen’s view on gender communication. One thing in this review that struck my
mind was the idea of “troubles talk.”
Women talk about their troubles as forms of connection to the other
person, but men don’t talk about their troubles unless they want a
solution. How true! After reading a little more about
Deborah Tannen’s view, I think she understands how
women crave unity and closeness, but she still falls in the equity model because
she finds that both genders need to find a middle ground, rather than having the
man accommodate the woman.
My
Homepage: http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leon/409bf2006/kim/kim-home.htm
Class
Homepage: http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy25/classhome-g25.htm