This article examines the work-related talk of a female technical director of a radio news-and-talk program to illustrate that women and men in positions of institutional authority create gendered identities through the demeanors of authority they create based on their face-related practices. Although extensive research, including P. Brown and Levinson’s (1987) analysis of linguistic politeness phenomena, has explored the linguistic dimensions of deference, these discussions have not integrated the concept of demeanor, even though Goffman (1967) introduces deference and demeanor as ‘two basic elements’ of the expressive component of language - that component through which individuals convey face-related meanings. An interactional sociolinguistic approach shows that the relationship between gendered identities and the linguistic expression of face is mediated by the dynamic negotiation of positions and frames. The implications of these practices are discussed within the context of gendered discourse in the workplace.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ainsworth-Vaughn, N. (1998) Claiming Power in Doctor-Patient Talk. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
2.
Alper, J. (1993) ‘The Pipeline is Leaking Women all the Way Along?’ , Science260: 409-411 .
3.
Austin, J. (1962) How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
4.
Bateson, G. (1972) Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine .
5.
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
6.
Brown, R. and Gilman, A. (1960) ‘The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity’, in T. A. Sebeok (ed.) Style in Language, pp. 253-276. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
7.
Bucholtz, M. (1999) ‘Bad Examples: Transgression and Progress in Language and Gender Studies’, in M. Bucholtz, A.C. Liang, and L.A. Sutton (eds) Reinventing Identities: The Gendered Self in Discourse, pp. 3-24. New York: Oxford University Press .
8.
Burke, R.J. and Davidson, M.J. (1994) ‘Women in Management: Current Research Issues’, in R.J. Burke and M.J. Davidson (eds) Women in Management: Current Research Issue, pp. 1-8. London: Chapman .
9.
Cameron, D. (1992) ‘Not Gender Difference but the Difference Gender Makes: Explanation in Research on Sex and Language’ , International Journal of the Sociology of Language94: 13-26 .
10.
Cameron, D. (1997a) ‘Performing Gender Identity: Young Men’s Talk and the Construction of Heterosexual Masculinity’, in S. Johnson and U.H. Meinhof (eds) Language and Masculinity, pp. 47-64. Oxford: Blackwell .
11.
Cameron, D. (1997b) ‘Theoretical Debates in Feminist Linguistics: Questions of Sex and Gender’, in R. Wodak (ed.) Gender and Discourse, pp. 21-36. London: Sage .
12.
Case, S.S. (1988) ‘Cultural Differences, not Deficiencies: An Analysis of Managerial Women’s Language’, in L. Larwood and S. Rose (eds) Women’s Careers: Pathways and Pitfalls, pp. 41-63. New York: Praeger .
13.
Coates, J. (1995) ‘Language, Gender and Career’, in S. Mills (ed.) Language and Gender: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, pp. 13-30. London: Longman .
14.
Davies, B. and Harré, R. (1990) ‘Positioning: Conversation and the Production of Selves’ , Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior20: 43-63 .
15.
Durkheim, E. (1954) The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (trans. Joseph Ward Swain). Glencoe, IL: Free Press .
16.
Eckert, P. and McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992) ‘Think Practically and Look Locally: Language and Gender as Community-Based Practice’ , Annual Review of Anthropology21: 461-490 .
17.
Fisher, S. (1993) ‘Gender, Power, Resistance: Is Care the Remedy? ‘, in S. Fisher and K. Davis (eds) Negotiating at the Margins: The Gendered Discourse of Power and Resistance, pp. 87-121. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press .
18.
Goffman, E. (1967) Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Pantheon .
19.
Goffman, E. (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper and Row .
20.
Goffman, E. (1977) ‘The Arrangement Between the Sexes’ , Theory and Society4(3): 301-331 .
21.
Goffman, E. (1981) Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press .
22.
Goodwin, M.H. (1990) He-Said-She-Said: Talk as Social Organization Among Black Children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press .
23.
Heritage, J. and Sefi, S. (1992) ‘Dilemmas of Advice: Aspects of the Delivery and Reception of Advice in Interactions Between Health Visitors and First-time Mothers’, in P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work, pp. 359-417. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
24.
Herring, S. (1994) ‘Politeness in Computer Culture: Why Women Thank and Men Flame’ , in M. Bucholtz, A.C. Liang, L.A. Sutton, and C. Hines (eds) Cultural Performances: Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Women and Language Conference, pp. 278-294 . Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group.
25.
Kotthoff, H. (1997) ‘The Interactional Achievement of Expert Status: Creating Asymmetries by “Teaching Conversational Lecture” in TV Discussions’, in H. Kotthoff and R. Wodak (eds) Communicating Gender in Context, pp. 139-178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins .
26.
Labov, W. and Fanshel, D. (1977) Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press .
27.
Lakoff, R. (1973) ‘The Logic of Politeness’ , Chicago Linguistics Society9: 292-305 .
28.
Leet-Pelligrini, H.M. (1980) ‘Conversational Dominance as a Function of Gender and Expertise’, in H. Giles, W.P. Robinson and P.M. Smith (eds) Language: Social Psychological Perspectives, pp. 97-104. Oxford: Pergamon .
29.
Linell, P. and Bredmar, M. (1996) ‘Reconstructing Topical Sensitivity: Aspects of Face-Work in Talks Between Midwives and Expectant Mothers’ , Research on Language and Social Interaction29(4): 347-379 .
30.
Morin, R. and Rosenfeld, M. (1998) ‘With More Equity, More Sweat: Poll Shows Sexes Agree on Pros and Cons of New Roles’, in ‘Reality Check: The Gender Revolution Series’, The Washington Post March 22, A1, A17.
31.
Ochs, E. (1992) ‘Indexing Gender’, in C. Goodwin and A. Duranti (eds) Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, pp. 335-358. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
32.
Pearson, B. (1988) ‘Power and Politeness in Conversation: Encoding of Face-Threatening Acts at Church Business Meetings’ , Anthropological Linguistics30(1): 68-93 .
Smith-Hefner, N.J. (1988) ‘Women and Politeness: The Javanese Example’ , Language in Society17: 535-554 .
35.
Tannen, D. (1984) Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk Among Friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex .
36.
Tannen, D. (1989) Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
37.
Tannen, D. (1990) You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: William Morrow .
38.
Tannen, D. (ed.) (1993) Framing in Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press .
39.
Tannen, D. (1994a) ‘The Sex-Class Linked Framing of Talk at Work’, in D. Tannen (ed.) Gender and Discourse, pp. 195-221. New York: Oxford University Press .
40.
Tannen, D. (1994b) Talking from 9 to 5: Women and Men in the Workplace: Language, Sex and Power. New York: Avon Books .
41.
Tannen, D. (1994c) ‘The Relativity of Linguistic Strategies: Rethinking Power and Solidarity in Gender and Dominance’, in D. Tannen (ed.) Gender and Discourse, pp. 19-52. New York: Oxford University Press .
42.
Tannen, D. and Wallat, C. (1993) ‘Interactive Frames and Knowledge Schemas in Interaction: Examples from a Medical Examination/Interview’, in D. Tannen (ed.) Framing in Discourse, pp. 57-76. New York: Oxford University Press .
43.
US Department of Labor. (1990) A Report on the Glass Ceiling Initiative. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office .
44.
van Langenhove, L. and Harré, R. (1999) ‘Introducing Positioning Theory’, in R. Harré and L. van Langenhove (eds) Positioning Theory, pp. 14-31. Oxford: Blackwell .
45.
West, C. (1990) ‘Not Just Doctor’s Orders: Directive-Response Sequences in Patients’ Visits to Women and Men Physicians’ , Discourse & Society1(1): 85-111 .
