This article takes a fresh look at the Ardeners' muted group theory, originally applied in social anthropology and later taken up by the women's movement. The theory has wider applicability in aiding understanding of the communication processes between females and males but there is a need for a combination of disparate types of research extending the focus beyond mutedness as a structural product to the processes by which women are rendered mute, involving a broader analysis of the political, economic and organizational context. The communications research arena is envisaged as one in which further work could be carried out.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ardener, E. (1975a) 'Belief and the Problem of Women', pp. 1-17 in S. Ardener (ed.) Perceiving Women. London: Malaby Press.
2.
Ardener, E. (1975b) 'The "Problem" Revisited', pp. 19-27 in S. Ardener (ed.) Perceiving Women. London: Malaby Press.
3.
Ardener, S. (ed.) (1975) Perceiving Women. London: Malaby Press.
4.
Ardener, S. (1978) Defining Females: The Nature of Women in Society. London: Croom Helm.
5.
Buckley, S. (1997) Broken Silence: Voices of Japanese Feminism. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
6.
Burton, P., K.K. Dyson and S. Ardener (1994) Bilingual Woman: Anthropological Approaches to Second-Language Use. Oxford: Berg.
7.
Cameron, D. (1985) Feminism and Linguistic Theory. London: Macmillan.
8.
Coates, J. (1993) Women, Men and Language, 2nd edn.London: Longman.
9.
Colfer, C.J. (1983) 'On Communication among "Unequals"', International Journal of Intercultural Relations7: 263-283.
10.
Frank, F. and F. Anshen (1983) Language and the Sexes. Albany: State University of New York Press.
11.
Gal, S. (1994) 'Between Speech and Silence: The Problematics of Research on Language and Gender', pp. 407-431 in C. Roman, S. Juhasz and C. Miller (eds) The Women and Language Debate: A Sourcebook. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
12.
Henley, N.M. and C. Kramarae (1994) 'Gender, Power, and Miscommunication', pp. 383-406 in C. Roman, S. Juhasz and C. Miller (eds) The Women and Language Debate: A Sourcebook. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
13.
Kramarae, C. (1981) Women and Men Speaking. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
14.
LaFontaine, J.S. (1972) The Interpretation of Ritual. London: Tavistock.
15.
Lituchy, T.R. and W.J. Wiswall (1991) 'The Role of Masculine and Feminine Speech Patterns in Proposal Acceptance', Management Communication Quarterly4: 450-465.
16.
Puckett, T.F. (1986) 'Toward Womanspeak: Explication and Critique of Spender, Lacan, Irigaray and Kristeva's Perspectives on Women Speaking', paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communications Association, San Francisco, CA, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 310 433.
17.
Roman, C., S. Juhasz and C. Miller (eds) (1994) The Women and Language Debate: A Sourcebook. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
18.
Spender, D. (1980) Man Made Language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
19.
Tannen, D. (1995) Talkingfrom 9 to 5: How Women's and Men's Conversational Styles Affect Who Gets Heard, Who Gets Credit, and What Gets Done at Work. London: Virago.
20.
Woolf, V. (1979) Women and Writing. London: Women's Press. (Originally published 1929.)
21.
Zimmerman, D.H. and C. West (1975) 'Sex Roles, Interruptions and Silences in Conversation', pp. 105-129 in B. Thorne and N. Henley (eds) Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
