Men's and women's speech: fundamentally different?

(1)

Men’s and women’s speech: fundamentally different?

An empirical research on linguistic differences and

similarities between Dutch men and women.

By Laura Raats

A thesis for the Master’s program Language and Society

Supervisor: A. Peeters-Podgaevskaja

Second reader: W. Honselaar

(2)

Acknowledgements

Even though this year has been challenging at times, it has primarily been absolutely exciting. I am thankful for the opportunity to return to the University of Amsterdam and indulge myself once more in the world of endless knowledge and expertise. I would like to thank my

supervisor dr. Alla Peeters-Podgaevskaja for her wisdom and support, on both a professional and personal level. I am grateful for her patience with me and her way of putting things in perspective.

Also, I would like to thank Professor dr. Wim Honselaar for his tips on literature and being the second reader. Many thanks as well to my family and my friends Natasja and Myrthe and their partners for their contributions to this research and their moral support. Without their help, this study might not have been possible.

Special thanks to my parents Jan and Kittie for supporting my desire to go back to university, I have truly enjoyed my time being back in the school benches. Last but certainly not least, I would also like to show my gratitude to my partner Michael, who has been

tremendously patient with me, excited for me and fully standing by me on this journey to my Master’s degree.

Laura Raats 24th_{of August 2018, Soerendonk}

(6)

1 Introduction

The difference between men’s and women’s communication is a familiar topic. It has not only been a popular topic in science, but in common bookstores as well. Up to this day, many people have read and referred to John Gray’s book Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus. The topic appeals to people’s day-to-day experiences, for they can often relate to the described scenarios and matters. Gray’s book is not an exception in any way. Multiple books are filled with the differences between men and women, including theories explaining where these differences stem from. Overall, it is an extensively explored matter. However, the issue is still surrounded by stereotypes, myths and is shrouded in vague contours: ‘A man’s speech is clear, direct, precise, and to the point’, whereas ‘a woman’s discourse is necessarily

indirect, repetitious, meandering, unclear, exaggerated’ (Lakoff, 1989: 73).

Some communication differences between men and women may have a sex-related cause, as sex is biologically determined. Other differences might be rooted in social factors and could be called gender-related, as this notion is, at least partially if not entirely, created and sustained by society (Coates, 2007). The ‘social discrepancies in the positions of men and women in our society are reflected in linguistic disparities’ (Lakoff, 1989: 46-47). Various theories and researches underpin the binary opposition men and women have been assigned to, regarding communication, behavior, societal roles, etc. To clarify, this paper focusses primarily on verbal communication.

Interestingly, the idea of men and women differing in communication seems to be a cross-cultural phenomenon, for the same stereotypes exist in different countries. Yet, as societies differ per country and per culture, would it not be a logical consequence that any gender-related differences could also be culture-dependent? Or do different cultures actually share (some of) these characteristics allowing for them to perhaps be labeled as universal? In addition to the section concerning men’s and women’s communication, possible cultural dependency is included as a component in this thesis as well. By considering cultural differences and similarities between (American) English, Russian and Dutch, we attempt to point out any linguistic patterns or lack thereof.

Another motivation to conduct this research lies in the fact that not all research was based on empirical evidence. Some investigations were founded on personal experiences, whereas others used a certain outline as an explanation for a variety of situations. The truth must be somewhere in the middle. It is time to separate what we think we know from what we factually know, hopefully providing some clarity on whether certain theories and outcomes

(7)

just contribute to the existing myths and stereotypes, or offer a challenging view and new insights.

The structure of this thesis is organized as follows. Section 2 gives an overview of various influential theories, conducted studies and the two main questions guiding this research. Section 3 describes the processes, methodologies and outcomes of the performed studies. Lastly, section 4 offers a discussion of the results, a return to the research questions and an overall conclusion.

2 Theoretical Views and Approaches

This section describes the theoretical background of this research. We will elaborate upon several existing theories in section 2.1, after which the findings of certain studies will be explained in section 2.2. The studies in this section are categorized into two separate research approaches: an emic and an etic approach (Firth & Wagner, 1997). Although these studies were never officially labelled as emic or etic, this seems to fit this particular research quite well. It allows for a separation between the presumptions based on interpretations and the claims based on collected data.

The emic approach works with soft, mostly qualitative, data. Often, the researchers tried to take the point of view of the men and women examined, interpreting their linguistic

behavior in certain situations and/or discussing it with them afterwards. The etic approach involves findings based on empirical studies, in which the collected results are the foundation for fact-based claims (see www.merriamwebster.com). The section will be concluded by some preliminary conclusions and the introduction of the research questions of this study.

2.1 Theories

A familiar representation of the traditional American family home features a silent husband and a talkative wife (Tannen, 1990). This picture is supported by some anti-women jokes and other stereotypical expressions and ideas. For all we know, women are more talkative than men (Brizendine, 2006) and talk more about their feelings (Lakoff, 1989; Cameron, 2007). Men are more dominant in conversations, and they never seem to listen when a woman is talking (Naezer, 2007). But why do these ideas exist and why are they so tenacious? Of course, men and women are fundamentally different by nature (Baron-Cohen, 2003). However, this statement does not seem sufficient. Many factors could influence men’s and

(8)

women’s linguistic behavior, such as societal expectations and upbringing. This does not solely influence people’s own behavior, but the way they view and judge each other as well. People are expected by society to talk and act in a certain way, likewise their upbringing is most probably dedicated to making sure that children will ‘fit this mold’ in the future. Men are raised to be tough, while women are expected to be sensitive and emotional. Possibly, this adjustment may require a change in personality for both men and women alike (Lakoff, 1989).

A good example of the discrepancy in the way we view each other is a study

mentioned by Tannen (1990). The men and women were asked to watch and comment on the recordings of boys and girls in conversation. The girls in the video were sitting still and talking to each other, just as they were asked by the experimenter. The boys, however, were restless and tried to disobey the experimenter. When the men observed the videos, they were positive about the boys, but thought of the girls as too well behaved. This led to some men distrusting the girls, as they were sitting that perfectly still, they must have been kissing up to the experimenter. In contrast, the women were positive about the girls and more negative about the boys. They disliked their restlessness and mocking aimed at the experimenter.

Another study illustrates the same disparity in views. Participants were asked why a baby was crying. The ones who were informed that the child was a boy, believed he was angry. The participants who were told it was a girl, assumed she was scared (Tannen, 1990: 113). A similar impression was given in a research involving adults. Interestingly, in the situation where both the women and the men used tag questions and disclaimers, the women were judged by the participants as less intelligent and knowledgeable than the men. When both the women and the men did not give support for their arguments, again, only the women were judged less intelligent and knowledgeable. This certainly underlines the considerable impact of one’s attitude on the way of how men and women view and judge each other (Tannen, 1990).

Further, it accords with the perception that the difference between men’s and women’s language reflects the societal expectation of men and women having different interests and different roles, holding different types of conversations, and reacting differently to other people (Lakoff, 1989). Now this had been brought to our attention, it is possible to have a better understanding of where the aforementioned stereotypes might be rooted. Regardless of whether they are true, stereotypes should not be disregarded. First and foremost, because it takes an exaggeration of an existing and recognizable belief to form the basis of a stereotype. Secondly, because people measure how they themselves conform to the stereotype relevant to them (Lakoff, 1989: 94). ‘Groups typically don’t invent stereotypes about themselves, but

(9)

about other groups. Hence, it is the dominant society that establishes stereotypes of the other groups, and decides which groups, on the basis of these stereotypes, are good and bad’ (Lakoff, 1989: 74-75). This all possibly already starts at a very young age, perhaps in nursery schools, as boys tend to communicate about external things and activities, whereas girls are more prone to talk about feelings, people and relationships/friendships (Tannen, 1990).

Multiple theories and studies address these issues and stereotypes, in an attempt to reveal the motivations behind men’s and women’s (mis)communication and (mis)perception. One point of view is that of status: hierarchy and asymmetrical relationships. ‘Men experience life as a fight for freedom and therefore naturally resist attempts to control them and

determine their behavior’ (Tannen, 1990: 76). Men size up and challenge competition, constantly framing themselves and others as superior or subordinate. Every conflict is an opportunity for them to come out on top. They expect and are expected to stand up for themselves and show initiative in order not to experience being downgraded in the hierarchy. This would also cause them to feel uncomfortable to listen for a longer time, as it places them in a one-down position. Men gain a higher status by showing off their knowledge and skills, as a consequence they feel more comfortable taking center stage. This kind of attitude feeds the need for gaining and spreading factual information. The biggest win in climbing this hierarchical ladder is the independence a man gains (Tannen: 1990).

Women, on the other hand, focus on connection: interdependence and symmetrical relationships. They use talking to create and maintain a relationship, by showing involvement and interest. Instead of sizing up their conversation partner, they will down-play and even out any status differences to be liked. They share personal information and secrets to create a bond. Women are therefore more inclined to point out things they have in common and avoid talking boastingly. Conflicts are experienced as a threat to their network. ‘For women the community is the source of power. Life is a struggle against the danger of being cut off from their community’ (Tannen, 1990: 87). This does not mean that status does not play a role in women’s lives. A woman has her own place within a network of intimate connections

(Tannen, 1990). Although opinions on this recurrent theme differ, as it was demonstrated in a study conducted by Griswold (2007: 312) that ‘girls display a high level of concern with social hierarchy and are therefore active agents in charge of organizing their social worlds’.

Another view is that of men and women having different styles. Women are supposed to speak more politely, whereas men are allowed to express themselves more strongly, for example, by means of tantrums or when they are older by swearing. In boys, this kind of behavior is tolerated more, as boys are perceived as high spirited. In contrast, girls are negatively judged for this behavior (Lakoff, 1989: 115).

(10)

Girls and women are taught to talk as ladies. They wait for their turn to speak and worry more than men about offending the interlocutor. They are reluctant to impose their ideas and avoid making strong statements. Women’s speech supposedly is more polite, for women are seen as the preservers of morality and civility (Lakoff, 1989). It is therefore less accepted when they use, for example, slang or swear words. Lakoff adds a nuance to this notion by suggesting that women can speak women’s language to a certain extent, also

depending on the situational context. Along with this she claims that academic women are the least inclined to make use of this style. However, this view is not entirely echoed by Van Alphen (1999), for the outcomes of her research indicate that girls voice their disagreement more directly than boys, without refraining from powerful statements (Van Oostendorp, 1999). Moreover, the idea of women and men applying different language styles is contested by Van Alphen, as she claims such opposing languages do not exist (Salemans, 2008).

In her book, Lakoff (1989) additionally focuses on a theory that draws a connection to ancient times when men were hunter-gatherers. The men left their community to go on hunts in groups, working together, and the women stayed behind to take care of the children, functioning as individuals. She sees this as a possible reason for all major institutions in the world being controlled by men. Lastly, she supposes that women are person-oriented and men are object-oriented.

According to most of the theories, women are judged negatively independently from the style they speak or how they adjust their speech. If they speak ladylike, men seem to think less of them. If they speak more ‘masculine’, they are perceived as standoffish and arrogant. It is questionable whether these views still hold nowadays. A research on gender stereotypes published in 2003 claims that gender stereotypes have indeed weakened. Although the findings conjointly suggest that, compared to men, women’s speech is still seen as more indirect and emotional: ‘Consistent with earlier studies, women’s speech was perceived as more talkative, emotional, and trivial’ (Popp et al., 2003: 323).

Apart from the negative image of women’s speech, most of the theories and studies have another common factor: American-English speakers. It is arguable whether the theories and findings would apply to speakers from other cultures. Especially since language is a medium to carry all kinds of thoughts and is an element of culture (Corten, 1992). As Ščerba (1974) stated: ‘Each language reflects the culture of the people who speak it.’ It may well be, since the theory concerning women’s desire for connection is supported by a study on

Russian women in rural Russia. The young married women resorted to personal networks in order to cope with the challenging living conditions and the emotional isolation, caused by having to leave their personal network behind after getting married. The findings claim that

(11)

‘making networks with other women remains an important female livelihood strategy in attaining material support, advice and emotional space to disclose frustrations and challenge power relations between women and men and between women’ (Kosterina, 2012: 1891).

But what about the remaining knowledge we have or think we have? Would relevant studies from various cultures come to the same findings? In this paper, research material from multiple cultures is combined in an attempt to create an overview (although limited) on gender-differences in relation to speech, in combination with possible culture dependency.

2.2 Findings in the Literature

All the studies that were taken into account to further form the theoretical background for this research, are bundled and categorized into two sections: one for emic and one for etic

research. They were further grouped by setting, discourse domain, general speech and various speech features.

2.2.1 Emic approach 2.2.1.1 Social domains College

In a class discussion, women would probably participate less than men. Supposedly, a reason for this is the bilingualism of girls, who have come to speak two dialects. Lakoff (1989) assumes that the mother and other women are the dominant influences in the lives of young children, resulting in all children learning women’s language. However, from the age of 5, as the children start going to school and are more influenced by other people such as teachers and same-sex peers, boys adopt new forms of expression, which develops into a different speaking style. These new influences in their lives would reinforce the societal stereotype of linguistically straightforward boys and ladylike girls, for example by permitting boys to speak more bluntly or in a more unpolished way while girls are rewarded for being quiet and are expected to speak politely. Boys would eventually forget how to speak the women’s

language as they fully switch to this new speaking style. Girls however, Lakoff claims, have to learn how to speak in a more neutral way in order to be taken seriously. She explaines that, if a girl uses women’s language, meaning that she speaks politely, less directly and expresses herself considerately, men will consider her uncapable of joining an intelligent conversation. Yet, if a girl speaks like a man, she will be mocked. Therefore, in a sense, girls become bilingual, as they are able to switch between the women’s language and a more neutral

(12)

language. Never mastering both dialects fully, it may be that women never really feel comfortable using either. Switching between the dialects, depending on the interlocutor and situation, and being aware of the nuances of social situations and possible disapproval may cost extra energy. Consequently, this prevents them from expressing themselves as fully and freely as they might otherwise (Lakoff, 1989: 19, 60-62).

In lectures, the first question was usually asked by a man. Supposedly, overall, the men asked more and longer questions. They also accompany their questions with statements and react to the given answer through a comment or question (Tannen, 1990: 36). By contrast, another study pointed out by Tannen (1990) found that women talk more than men in small groups. Although, the men offered opinions, suggestions and information and the women reacted, agreed or disagreed. It was claimed that the women felt uncomfortable to talk a lot, which would cause them to quiet down and involve other group members. Tannen beliefs this imbalance to be the result of the different habitual communication styles of the men and women.

Seminars and Conferences

Experimental studies in Tannen’s book (1990) indicate that men feel more comfortable sharing information, speaking their mind and addressing a group authoratively. Compared to women, they gave more orders to the audience. Women, on the contrary, rarely used

imperatives. Instead, they invited the audience to participate. At conferences, the women participated less when it comes to asking questions and their questions took less time. On average, the women’s questions covered 23,1 seconds and the men’s 52,7 seconds (Tannen, 1990: 35, 64).

Meetings and Expertise groups

In a test done by Pellegrini, experts were coupled with non-experts. The male non-experts were more dominant than the female experts. Also, the male experts talked more than the female experts. The women were more hesitant to show their expertise. Apparently, the superior knowledge of the women did not evoke respect, but resentment (Leet-Pellegrini, 1980; Tannen, 1990).

Men are also more dominant at meetings, as they talk more often and take longer turns. Tannen (1990: 35) observed that ‘the women’s longest turns were shorter than the men’s shortest turns’. The overall view is that men talk more and longer at meetings, in mixed-group discussions, classrooms and at conferences. Yet, it is still believed that women

(13)

talk more than men, even when they actually talked equally in a group. Strikingly, in the situations mentioned, the women often felt that the men talked too much (Tannen, 1990).

2.2.1.2 Discourse domains Initiating

Lakoff (1989: 58) assumes that ‘women typically lack assertiveness in more contexts than men do’. This notion is accompanied by Tannen’s claim about women being less inclined to interrupt during a conversation and simply waiting for an invitation or a pause to take their turn. As a consequence, women are not accustomed to claiming the floor (Tannen, 1990).

Agreement and Disagreement

In conversations, women are more inclined to give responses. First of all, to indicate that they are listening and paying attention, but also to provide support to the speaker. Women are also more apt to ask questions, agree, laugh and respond more positively and enthusiastically. Men, on the other hand, give smaller and less listener responses (Tannen, 1990). Tannen (1990: 69) further assumes that, in conversations, men tend to keep their listening signals limited and primarily voice a response when they agree with the speaker. Besides this, they are more likely to challenge the speaker than to agree with him/her, and are more prone to declaring their disagreement (Tannen, 1990; Naezer, 2007). According to Tannen (1990: 78), openly disagreeing with one another is a sign of intimacy for men, following the ‘logic’ that you would only argue with people that are close to you. Furthermore, for men, showing some aggression offers a way to start an interaction and create involvement. Women, conversely, feel more comfortable showing support. Consequently, they take less interest in offering an opposing view (Tannen, 1990).

Directness / Indirectness

Tannen (1990) proposes that women are more inclined to make wider use of the properties of implicature in their speech. She suggests that women make more use of covert

communication, in the sense that women can say one thing, while implying a different message. For example, by showing concern for someone’s feelings and giving that person advice, a woman might conjointly imply criticism (Tannen, 1990: 73-74). Tannen (1990: 77) further explains that women avoid direct confrontations to preserve harmony, while for men directness would strengthen the bond between them. In addition, Naezer (2007) claims that women are more prone to expressing possibilities and preferences instead of boldly stating

(14)

that something is necessary or obligatory. With regard to discussing personal problems, however, men are more likely to be indirect (Tannen, 1990: 123).

Jokes

Supposedly, men make more jokes in comparison to women (Naezer, 2007). Men bond by telling jokes (Lakoff, 1989). Besides this, telling a joke could be regarded as an asymmetrical activity, as the one telling the joke is in control and has the power to make others laugh. In line with this power imbalance, joking can be seen as a way of negotiating status (Tannen, 1990). The idea that men feel more comfortable speaking in public than women enforces the stereotype of women being less inclined to tell jokes in large groups (Tannen, 1990: 42-43).

Topics

A study involving pupils from both sexes, showed that the young boys had a tendency to jump from topic to topic. Furthermore, the sixth-grade boys covered 55 topics within a 20-minute conversation, which included only two extended turns. They discussed things,

activities and opinions on social issues. The tenth-grade boys had an intimate talk, concerning their relationships and feelings of loss, hurt and longing.

The sixth-grade girls spoke mainly about a falling out with a friend and how this caused feelings of sadness. The girls shared their troubles and expressed their dislike of conflicts. Moreover, they reinforced each other’s feelings. The tenth-grade girls followed the same pattern, as they elaborated on problems with other people (Tannen, 1990: 139).

Another research on pupil communication indicates that the girls mostly spoke about problems in relationships, whereas the boys discussed activities and plans (Tannen, 1990: 118).

Tannen (1990: 118) also mentions a research on adult speech. The results suggest that, whithout the presence of women, the men mainly talked about business, food, sports and recreation. They did not talk about people. The women, without any men present, discussed people (personal relationships), business, health and weight control. In mixed-sex groups, the most popular topics in both groups (business and people) were avoided. Also, the women followed the men’s style by, for example, discussing food, but not mentioning diet or health.

Child-directed speech

Lakoff (1989) claims that it is probable that boys and girls first learn ‘women’s language’ as their first language. As already has been explained in a previous section, she further suggests that girls become bilingual, resulting in the ability to speak women’s language and a more

(15)

neutral language. Boys, on the other hand, would forget women’s language. Tannen (1990: 75, 127-128) supposes that teachers consider boys and girls to belong to separate social groups, which are judged differently. Girls are praised more for sitting quietly and still, whereas boys are reprimanded more for not sitting still.Along this line, she mentions the observation that ‘fathers issue more commands to their children. And they issue more commands to their sons than to their daughters’.

It is also interesting that the ‘mothers of secure children may be more flexible in adjusting their narrative style to their children’s needs than mothers of insecure children’ (Fivush et al., 2006; Reese & Farrant, 2003; Kelly, 2016: 51). The outcomes of Kelly’s (2016: 65) research on mother-child conversations indicate gender differences in confident duos, but not among the insecure couples, in maternal elaborative style and child independent

narratives.

Moreover, the results imply that the mothers of the secure children are more sensitive to their childrens’ communicative needs. This was especially true for the mothers of the secure sons, whose communication was most descriptive when discussing memories together: the mothers extended and expanded their sons topics instead of changing the subject.

However, the independent narratives of the confident sons were still considerably less detailed and extensive in comparison to those of the secure girls (Kelly, 2016).

2.2.1.3 General speech characteristics Lexicon

Women have a larger vocabulary with regard to naming colors, since words such as beige,

ecru, aquamarine, lavender are mostly absent in the men’s vocabulary (Lakoff, 1989).

However, Lakoff further states that upper-class British men could possibly also make use of these color names categorized as feminine.

Furthermore, women and girls are more inclined to use the word let’s’. Young girls make more use of we are gonna, we could, than the boys. They try to influence what others are doing, without directly ordering them around (Tannen, 1990). What’s more is that hedges occur more in women’s speech: well, y’know, kinda, I guess, I think, I wonder. Such word types or phrases make a statement less forceful (Lakoff, 1989). Another word used more by women than by men is sorry. Besides an apologetic meaning, the word is also used to express sympathy and concern. Tannen (1990) suggests that this double meaning is the reason why women frequently use the word, since they apply it to establish a connection through empathy.

(16)

Lakoff (1989) supposes that certain adjectives are predominately limited to women’s speech. For example: adorable, charming, sweet, lovely, cute and divine, which she labels as ‘empty’ adjectives. Women make more use of ‘meaningless’ particles as well, such as oh dear (Lakoff, 1989). Moreover, the intensive so is more frequent in women’s language than in men’s, for example: “I like him so much” (Lakoff, 1989).

The outcomes of a study conducted on Dutch men and women at the workplace, suggests that men use more expletives and unnecessary complex words and sentences.

Women, on the other hand, tend to make more use of diminutives and intensives, such as heel ‘very’ and ontzettend ‘extremely’ (Naezer, 2007).

Men and women may use different words, but an additional factor is that not all words are applicable to both sexes. Certain words are semiotically connected to women and others to men. For example, when it is mentioned that a person passed out, this only applies to a man. Yet, when someone fainted, it is assumed that person was a woman (Tannen, 1990).

Intonation patterns / Prosody

It is presumed that women have a wider range of intonation patterns available to them. Possibly, as an attempt to ascertain that the message is received and responded to by the conversation partner. For instance, women apply a rising intonation or a tag question (or tail question) in statement context. A tag-question is a declarative or imperative statement, which is followed by a question: ‘It is hot in here, isn’t it?’ Lakoff (1989: 16) explains it as ‘a question to which the speaker already has a particular answer in mind, but is reluctant to state it baldly’.

In a study involving second-graders, the girls spoke with a rising intonation when they were telling stories to each other, making every phrase sound like a question. This intonation pattern in English is merely found among women (Lakoff, 1989). In addition, Lakoff (1989: 53-56) suggests that ‘women speak in italics, using tone to emphasize certain words’. Tannen (1990: 120) as well claims that ‘women are more likely than men to phrase their ideas as questions’. Along with this, she assumes that women’s speech is characterized by a lower volume and a higher pitch.

Pronunciation

Boys drop the ‘g’s’ of the suffix -ing more than girls. They are more prone to keep goin’,

(17)

2.2.2 Etic approach

2.2.2.1 General speech characteristics Average word use

For a research on natural conversations of men and women, an electronic activated recorder (EAR) was used to record the spoken words of university students in the United States and Mexico. The device activated itself automatically and periodically started recording for 30 seconds every 12,5 minutes. The 396 participants had no control over it. The outcome of the experiment suggests that the female students spoke on average 16.215 words and that the male students spoke 15.669 words over a period of 17 waking hours. As the difference of just 7% of the standardized variability among men and women do not meet the conventional thresholds for statistical significance, the results offer no support for the belief that women talk more than men (Mehl et al., 2007).

Connectivity

A Dutch study concerning the possible difference in connectivity between girls and boys examined the verbal interaction of 96 teenage boys and girls (Van Alphen, 1999). The teenagers were divided into same-sex groups of three individuals. The results indicated the existence of a variation in connectivity in the verbal interaction. The researcher claimed that more connectivity was found in the girls’ speech, as they aimed for solidarity and made more use of contiguous discourse. The boys predominantly focused on asymmetry, for they used less discourse that corresponded with their group member’s turns. However, it was also suggested that both gender groups shared some similarities, as both groups demonstrated more reactions than initiations. Furthermore, the girls as well as the boys had more agreements than disagreements. The researcher further stated that the boys were more inclined to avoid direct disagreements, whereas the girls voiced their disagreements in a straightforward manner. Consequently, the girls supposedly were considered less cooperative than the boys. As has been claimed in other studies, the boys made more jokes, in particular in case when they disagreed. It was suggested that they rather joked about something than directly stating their disagreement. Joking would aim at strengthening the connection between the male group members as well. Overall, a final claim in this research was the lack of a sharp boundary between the girls’ and boys’ discourse (Van Alphen, 1999).

(18)

Child-directed speech

Examining the prosodic aspects of child-directed speech of 18 Flemish speakers, the outcomes demonstrated the existence of a parantese effect regarding the dimension of speaking rate, which applies to the articulation speed as well as the semantic information flow. By the same token, no gender differences were revealed. Hence, the men and the women both spoke slower when addressing a child. The women articulated slightly slower than men, still this did not result in a significant difference. According to the Audience Design Theory (Bell, 1984; Depester & De Vis, 2011), speakers adapt their speech to their interlocutors. In line with this notion, the men raised the pitch of their voice more than the women in child-directed speech. The researchers therefore argued that, comparatively, men need to raise their pitch more than women have to, since women already speak with a higher pitch. On top of this, the experimenters assume that men employ this technique to avoid intimidating the child.

Furthermore, the results imply that a more distinct parantese effect regarding

modulation of depth and pace, is exhibited in the women’s speech than in the men’s. The men modulate less within the higher segment of their vocal range, whereas the women’s voices fluctuated more and faster in lower-frequencies. The men were able to utilize the linguistic aspects of child-directed speech, but needed to raise their pitch higher than women. The researchers suggested that within this high vocal range that is unusual for men, they lack laryngeal muscle control to additionally be able to modulate (Depester and De Vis, 2011). In terms of frequency of interaction, fathers spend less time communicating with their children. And when they do communicate, they only produce a limited number of utterances (Ward and Cooper, 1999; Depester and De Vis, 2011).

2.2.2.1.1 Speed and volume

Russian researchers Bogdanova-Beglardjan, Sherstinova, Blinova and Martynenko (2016) set up an extensive sociolinguistic study on Russian everyday speech, probing for possible

discourse characteristics used by different social groups. In order to analyze Russian everyday speech, long-term audio recordings were collected in a corpus, containing more than 1200 hours of speech. Before tackling this enormous amount of data, it was decided to firstly create a subcorpus by extracting material from the main corpus, and conduct an exploratory study on this material. The subcorpus was comprised of one hour and 46 minutes recordings in total, involving 12 respondents and their 10 interlocutors. The results of the analyzed speech data indicated that, in general, the differences in language use were more significant between age

(19)

groups than between gender groups. Nonetheless, the data related to the gender groups will be discussed in this paper. (To clarify, the sections 2.2.2.1.1 up to and including 2.2.2.1.5 are all connected to this study on Russian everyday speech.)

The Russian men talked less than the women in general. In all social domains

(profession, education, home, etc.), they talked less than the women. This was underlined in the professional and educational domain, in which they talked 2 to 2,5 times less. On average, the men talked for almost 6 hours per day, while the women talked for more than 8 hours. Furthermore, the volume in words of the women’s corpus exceeded the men’s corpus by one third.

As for the speed of the Russian men’s and women’s speech, the men talked slightly faster than the women: 5.46 syllables per second versus 5.25 syllables per second,

respectively. The men’s speech also contained more hesitation disfluencies. Overall, the corpus included more questions than statements. The women’s corpus had less questions than that of the men (Bogdanova-Beglardjan et al., 2016).

2.2.2.1.2 Word use: pragmatic phrases

In general, two times more different pragmatic phrases were found in the women’s corpus than in the men’s. Pragmatic phrases consist of discursive elements often used together, which mainly fulfill a pragmatic function, for they have reduced or even lost lexical or grammatical meaning. More than one third of the pragmatic phrases was provided by older speakers, of which 72,5 % were female. Along with this, the findings showed that the women preferred to use metacommunicative markers or contact verbs (for example, znaeš’ ‘you know’), in order to keep the interlocutor’s attention. In total, 80% of all contact verbs usage was related to the women. Among the men, koroče ‘in short’ was popular: 56,3 % of all counts was found in the men’s speech.

Another noteworthy finding concerned the usage of the word da ‘yes / but’ (with the meaning of reinforcement) which was encountered 1,5 up to 2 times more often in the women’s speech. This did not hold for the construction da i ‘and / nor’, that was employed two times more frequent by the men. Remarkably, this construction was mainly found in the speech of the men older than 40 years, with a higher educational level

(20)

2.2.2.1.3 Word use: high frequency word lists

In the index of words that are used with higher frequency, the word da ‘yes/but’ occupies the sixth position for older speakers, whilst for other age groups da is ranked somewhat higher. The personal pronoun ja ‘I’ was the absolute leader in the women’s speech. In the men’s speech this position was taken by the particle nu ‘wel/er’. Although, it must be mentioned that the high frequency word lists for men and women were quite similar and displayed only minor variations. The Russian women more often used words of reinforcements, such as

očen’ ‘very’ and the interjection oj in their speech (Bogdanova-Beglardjan et al., 2016).

2.2.2.1.4 Word use: swear and taboo words

A more distinctive feature in the men’s speech compared to the women’s, lies in the quite frequent occurrence of swear and taboo words (ST-words). Especially frequent in the speech of all the men was the word bljad’ ‘whore/bitch/fuck’, taking a high ranking (21) on the frequency list. Along with this, swear words were encountered mostly in the speech of the younger speakers (Bogdanova-Beglardjan et al., 2016).

2.2.2.1.5 Pronunciation

Comparing the use of reduction by the Russian men and women, it was found that the Russian men made greater use of the reduced forms čë (čto, ‘what’), ščas (sejčas, ‘now’), buit (budet, ‘will be’). Only in the men’s speech, the forms disitno, disit, disitn (dejstvitel’no, ‘really’),

kada (kogda, ‘when’) and šo (čto, ‘what’) appeared with high frequency. The reduced form disitna exclusively appeared in the speech of the older men. The reduced forms of čto and spasibo were found in the high frequency list of the men’s speech only.

The Russian women showed different preferences in usage of reduced forms. They used the reduced form of govorit (‘he/she says’): gyt, which was not found in the men’s speech. The most popular reduced form in general was that of the word sejčas: ščas, which appeared in women’s speech almost twice as frequent. Yet, the forms čë, buit and ničë (ničego, ‘nothing’) occurred about two times less frequent in women’s speech (Bogdanova-Beglardjan et al., 2016). The study did not include an explanation for these observations.

2.2.2.1.6 Grammar

As to the usage of the parts of speech, in general, 13,7% of the syntactic constructions in the women’s corpus contained certain deviations compared to 13,64% in the men’s corpus. Thus, the syntactic irregularity was comparable in both types of speech. Referring to the men’s

(21)

corpus, the results displayed 7,35% disruptions, 2,70% ellipses, 1,8% parcellations, and 1,5% self-corrections. When looking at the women’s speech, the results were again somewhat similar: 6,12% disruptions, 4,52% ellipses, 1,68% parcellations and 1,09% self-corrections. The higher usage of ellipses by the women appeared to be characteristic for the speech of the girls and the young women (Bogdanova-Beglardjan et al., 2016).

The men made slightly more use of interjections, yet personal pronouns were less frequently encountered in the men’s speech than in women’s. Moreover, the women’s corpus contained more nouns, which are not typically used in oral speech. Interestingly, 65% of the nouns in vocative case belonged to the women’s speech and were also mainly referring to women (Bogdanova-Beglardjan et al., 2016).

In summary, the outcomes of the Russian study indicated that the linguistic differences between the age groups were more significant than between the gender groups. The biggest differences were found in the speech of the younger individuals versus the older ones (Bogdanova-Beglardjan et al., 2016). Returning to the male-female speech comparison, the Russian women talked slightly more; yet the Russian men talked slightly faster: 5.46 syllables per second against the women’s 5.25 syllables per second.

The personal pronoun ja ‘I’ was the leader in the women’s speech, while in the men’s speech this was the particle nu ‘wel/er’, although it was additionally noted that the high frequency word lists for men and women were quite similar and displayed only minor variations. Furthermore, an observation that emerged from the data comparison was the frequent use of ST-words by the men. Apart from this, ST-words were encountered mostly in the speech of younger speakers. Moreover, it was found that the syntactic irregularity was comparable for both gender groups.

2.2.3 Preliminary conclusions

Interestingly, in this research, many studies and views regarding American English genderlects can be classified as emic. The findings are presented in an explanatory and interpreting manner. However, most of them lack the support of collected data. Although a large part of this literature is rather dated, it still has a large influence on the matter of male versus female communication and is referred to frequently. Furthermore, many of these described or applied studies involved macro-level research that examined men’s and women’s linguistic behavior in group settings, focusing on, for example, the conversation topics and the matters of who makes jokes and who (dis)agrees more with whom. The linguistic

(22)

interaction between the two genders was a larger focal point than their literal utterances or linguistic features.

In contrast to this, most of the studies categorized as etic, did concentrate more on these aspects. One could say that the studies were conducted at a micro-level. The Russian research in particular entailed the examination of a wide range of smaller linguistic features. Moreover, it is important to note the inconsistency and even contradiction between the results and claims. For example, while some emic studies claimed that women talk more in general and participate less in large groups, certain etic studies did not support this disbalance and showed no significant difference between the amount of speech of men and women. This was true for a study involving English, as well as a study concerning Russian. Researchers such as Lakoff and Tannen emphasize the difference in male and female communication and their different motives for this, whereas the results of the study on university students implied that the difference was insignificant. The Russian study supports this by indicating that more differences were encountered between the age groups than between the gender groups. Consequently, the different research methods and outcomes do not provide sufficient

clarification and conclusiveness regarding the male-female communication comparison. Not to mention the existing gaps and unexplored areas within the matter’s broader picture, for most studies in this field have only been carried out on a small number of areas.

2.2.4 Research questions

Despite all the research that has been done on genderlects, gender differences in relation to communication, and multiple theories attempting to provide insights from all kinds of perspectives, many stereotypes remain unchallenged and it is still quite unclear where we stand in examining this issue. A key aspect to base overall conclusions on is missing, that is the numbers. In an attempt to clarify the issues surrounding the male-female communication comparison, the two aforementioned traditions of macro- and micro-level research were merged into one empirical exploratory study. Both the linguistic behavior of multiple Dutch men and women, as well as various linguistic features were examined, with the main

objective of making any differences and similarities between men’s and women’s verbal communication measurable. This study seeks to provide a triptych of research on gender-differences in verbal communication by conjointly using the American macro-level studies and the Russian micro-level study as templates and reference materials for an investigation concerning Dutch speech. In addition, we look out for any possible cultural-dependency. This

(23)

understanding links the introduced literature and this thesis’ intention to the research questions that were formulated to guide our investigation:

1. In which linguistic domains do gender-related differences arise?

2. Do the findings point towards possible culture-dependency; and can they be considered universally applicable?

3 Exploratory Study on Men’s versus Women’s Speech

Several Dutch men and women were recorded during group sessions, as well as individually during their private time. Without identifying with (one of) the genders and offering

explanations for their possible motivations, the collected data was analyzed and conclusions were based on the factual outcomes. Special attention was paid to the emergence of speech patterns that could be typical for Dutch men or women. Despite the many aspects of previous studies that were included in this research and the combination of sociolinguistic and

linguistic examination, this research is not comprehensive enough to provide any ground-breaking conclusions. Nevertheless, we hope that it could make a considerable contribution to the research field. After elaborating upon the material in the following chapters, we will provide answers to the research questions which will be elucidated in Section 5 ‘Discussion and Conclusion’.

In order to investigate the linguistic behavior of men and women in groups and the speech characteristics of men and women individually, our exploratory study consists of two major parts. Study 1 is based on classroom observations and consists of two sessions (A and B). Session A contains a recorded classroom session that includes a recorded lunch break. Session B contains a recorded classroom session, of which a group discussion was part of the classroom activities. Study 2 concerns the recorded conversations of 8 individuals.

In the previous sections it has already been mentioned that this Dutch research is flanked by the Russian and American studies. A comparison between Study 1 and the American-English macro-level studies should provide any supporting or contradicting findings regarding men’s and women’s discourse behavior in groups. Study 2 functions as a counterpart to the Russian micro-level research with respect to the individual speech of men and women. Section 3.1 first introduces the session A of study 1, which is followed by an outline of the session B. In section 3.2 study 2 is set out, in which the numerous linguistic

(24)

aspects examined are placed in multiple subsections. Section 3.1 and 3.2 both include descriptions of the participants and procedures, and end with preliminary conclusions.

3.1 Study 1: Discourse Analysis of a Group

Two different classroom sessions were observed which were attended by two different

teachers and groups of students. During both sessions Dutch was the working language which was the native language for both teachers and the majority of the students. The few foreign students that were present had a very good understanding of the Dutch language and could speak Dutch just as well. Naturally, the students and teachers were asked for permission to be recorded before the class started, none of them objected. Central to these classroom session recordings is the linguistic interaction, not the individual speech patterns and characteristics.

3.1.1 Classroom setting A: without discussion

The topic of the class was Russia and Eastern Europe and was given from 13: 00 to 15: 00, with a 15-20 minute break in between. In this case, a discussion was not part of this classroom activity. The teacher explained historical events, asked the students questions and the students answered and asked questions.

3.1.1.1 Method Participants

During the course, 18 individuals were present. The class was attended by 6 men, 10 women and 1 individual who preferred not to identify his/her gender in the questionnaire. It is not known whether this was a mistake, a deliberate choice or a statement to support the issue on gender-neutrality. The teacher was, at the time, 51 years of age and grew up in Limburg. Interestingly, not a trace of Limburgish dialect was detected in her speech. She actually sounded rather posh. The female students were between 18 and 42 years old. All women, except one, were young adults. Among the male participants, whose ages ranged from 21 up to 64, one was middle-aged and another one was an older man. The other men were young adults.

The students had originally come from various provinces in The Netherlands. The regions Noord-Brabant and Noord-Holland were represented by 7 students. A few students had grown up in a foreign country. Two adult students were from Russia and one younger student grew up in Italy. As it was not their first class together, the students and teacher

(25)

already knew each other. They appeared to feel free to talk to one another, told each other jokes and shared stories and opinions.

Procedure

An audio recorder was placed in the room to record the group’s speech during the class, including the lunch break. During this break, many students walked in and out of the classroom, yet there were constantly students present in the classroom. This resulted in sufficient linguistic interaction to include this part of the recording in the analysis. Prior to the beginning of the class, the students and teacher were asked to write down their gender, age and province where they grew up and attended school.

During the class, notes were taken by the observer. When the students answered or asked questions, it was written down, whether this was done by a male or female student. It was also noted when a student made a comment or a joke. Afterwards, the audio recording was analyzed and decoded. The audible texts were transcribed and analyzed for aspects such as participation, extended turns, interruptions, number of (tag) questions and answers per student. The teacher’s speech was also analyzed, yet to a lesser extent than the students’, as her role of a teacher would have caused her speech to differ too distinctively from her ‘ordinary’ speech. That is why, the results of her speech were not combined with that of the female students. The male-female division in this research was mainly based on the students’ speech.

3.1.1.2 Descriptive analysis: general observations

The students in the classroom were calm but actively involved. They asked questions for clarification, were not holding back to answer the teacher’s questions and seemed genuinely interested in the subject. Their turns rarely crossed, for they gave each other room to answer or ask questions, without interrupting. The atmosphere in the classroom was serious, still there was some room for several jokes made by the teacher and students.

Zooming in on the participation during the class, the students were responsible for 33,5% of the participation. The male students provided 19% of the participation. The female students’ contribution was somewhat less: 14,5 %. The teacher’s participation accounted for 62% of all speech turns. The gender-unspecified student was responsible for 2,5% of the participation. Sometimes the students were simultaneously speaking, which accounted for the remaining 2%. Remarkably, even though the male students represented roughly one third of

(26)

the classroom, they were responsible for a larger amount of the speech turns and reactions than the women.

3.1.1.2.1 Linguistic behavior During the class

The students’ participation contained different kind of reactions. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it was the oldest male student who seemed to feel most comfortable giving additional

explanations and asking questions. His participation accounted for 24 turns (about one third) of the total number of male turns. Some remarkable outcomes that emerged from the analysis were connected to one younger male student in particular, who also participated abundantly with 21 turns, made all the jokes and openly disagreed a few times with his classmates and with the teacher. Although age could be an important factor here, we must not neglect the influence of the personalities of the individuals. Table 1 gives an overview of different types of reactions, provided by the male and female participants.

Table 1. Types of reactions per gender.

Men Women Women including the g-u student*

Number of turns 66 51 60

Type of reaction (%) (%) (%)

Answers 17 22 23

Answers posed as questions 14 18 20

Questions 17 8 10 General reactions 11 24 23 Explanations 14 8 7 Extended turns 5 8 7 Interruptions/additions 5 8 7 Jokes 5 0 0 *Gender-unspecified student

When comparing the total number of participation turns, we see that the male students were responsible for 66 turns, while the female students’ participation consisted of 51 turns. This is quite remarkable, as the group of female students was bigger.

(27)

Almost one third of the men’s participation was devoted to answering the questions. For the women this percentage was even higher, their participation consisted for 40% of answering the questions. When it comes to answers posed as questions, the female students appeared to do this slightly more often. Focusing on the number of questions asked in the classroom, the male students asked more than twice as many questions compared to the female students. The men also provided more explanations in the classroom. (Although it must be mentioned that particularly one older man was responsible for many explanations given in the classroom.) In this classroom, again, it were the men who made the jokes.

When comparing the data of the gender-unspecified student to that of the other

students, the data were more compatible with those of the female students. However, her turns showed only a small number of reactions, contained a rather large number of answers and answers that were posed as questions, just like the other girls’ speech. Also, the relatively high number of general reactions and the absence of explanations and jokes pointed to the direction of female speech. When adding the data of the gender-unspecified student to those of the other female students, the percentage of the answers posed as questions, and the percentage of the total number of answers increased.

Zooming in on the teachers’ participation, she asked 57 questions, which accounted for 26% of her contribution. The teacher spent 2% on answering her own questions and 31% on the reaction to the students’ participation. Of her total number of turns, 18% consisted of explaining the literature and historical events.

During a lunch break

In the break, the men again had the upper hand when it comes to the number of speech turns (136 turns). The women participated substantially less, contributing with 73 turns.

More jokes and anecdotes were told, which was to be expected. Seventeen jokes were made by the men, 18 jokes were told by the women. The men spent 13% of their break activities on joking. In contrast, the women were responsible for 25% of all jokes.

Out of the total number of the women’s turns during the break, 36 (49% of total) were specifically directed at the men, and 17 (23% of total) were specifically directed at other women. The men had a more even division, 54 of their turns were directed specifically at the male classmates (40% of total) and 55 were directed specifically at the women (40% of total). Not only had the male students an overall more dominant position during this classroom activity and the break, they also divided their attention more equally during the break.

(28)

However, it must be mentioned that not all students stayed in the classroom during the break. It was therefore not possible to fully cover the male-female interaction.

3.1.1.2.2 Speech analysis

3.1.1.2.2.1 Fluency

The fluency of the participants’ speech was examined by analyzing the use of the hesitations, indicated by the fillers (uu)uh, uhm, eh and ehm. The total amount of speech during the classroom session, including the speech during the break, was analyzed for hesitations (see Table 2). This resulted in a total of 127 fillers.

Table 2. Fluency of gender groups and the teacher.

Participants Fillers (no.)

Share of total turns %

Share of total fillers %

Men 23 11 18

Women 9 6 7

Teacher 95 42 75

The male students hesitated more frequently during their speech in comparison to the female students. Besides being responsible for 18% of all hesitations, over 10% of their turns contained a filler. The women used a filler only 9 times during their speech, which occurred in 6% of their turns. The teacher’s speech included the most fillers. Yet, we must keep in mind the fact that she also had the highest number of turns.

3.1.1.2.2.2 Word use: patterns

In order to investigate whether certain patterns could be discovered in the male and female speech, we conducted an in-depth linguistic analysis of the data. The lexical means in Table 3 were selected for the reason of standing out during the transcription or because they have been indicated in other literature as a typicality of male or female speech

(29)

Table 3. Word use per gender.

Words Men (no.) Women (no.)

G-U student (no.) Women + g-u student

(no.) Mean Men Women Mean

Ofzo ‘or something’ 5 1 1 2 0,83 0,18

Ok ‘okay’ 5 2 1 3 0,83 0,27

Toch? ‘right?’ 2 2 2 4 0,33 0,36

Enzo ‘and stuff’ 5 0 0 0 0,50 0,00

Zeg maar ‘as it were’ 2 5 3 8 0,33 0,73

Ja maar ‘yes but’ 8 7 1 8 1,33 0,73

Nou ‘well’

(at beginning of sentence) 9 8 0 8 1,50 0,73

Ja ‘yes’ 57 16 10 26 9,50 2,36

Nee ‘no’ 19 8 3 11 3,17 1,00

Ja precies ‘yes exactly' 3 2 0 2 0,50 0,18

Ooh, oh, o ‘oh’ 8 1 2 3 1,33 0,27

Echt ‘really’ 20 9 2 11 3,33 1,00

Naja ‘well’ 2 1 0 1 0,33 0,09

Leuk ‘fun’ 3 4 0 4 0,50 0,36

Interessant ‘interesting’ 6 2 0 2 1,00 0,18

Maarja ‘but, oh well’ 2 0 0 0 0,33 0,00

Gewoon ‘just’ 11 7 0 7 1,83 0,64

Oja ‘oh that reminds

me’ 1 0 0 0 0,17 0,00

Hmhm ‘hmhm’ 0 3 0 3 0,00 0,27

Dus ‘so’ 11 5 1 6 1,83 0,55

Sorry ‘sorry’ 0 2 1 3 0,00 0,27

Sorry? ‘sorry?’ 1 0 0 0 0,17 0,00

Hoor ‘you know’ 7 1 1 2 1,17 0,18

The analysis of lexical means used by the students showed that, compared to the female students, the male students made more use of words such as, ofzo ‘or something’, ok ‘okay’,

enzo ‘and stuff’, ja maar ‘yes but’, nou ‘well’ (at the beginning of a sentence), ja ‘yes’, nee

‘no’, ja precies ‘yes exactly’, oh ‘oh’, echt ‘really’, interessant ‘interesting’, gewoon ‘just’,

(30)

The women made more use of words like: zeg maar ‘as it were’, hmhm ‘hmhm’, sorry ‘sorry’, toch? ‘right?’ (at the end of a sentence). They did not use the words: enzo ‘and stuff’,

maarja ‘but’ or ‘oh well’, oja ‘oh that reminds me’.

Almost all words were used by both genders. When looking at the frequency of these words, we have to keep in mind that the men’s total number of turns were 25% higher

compared to that of the women. The gender-unspecified student showed more resemblance to the word use of the female students. For this reason, the results of this student were added in order to the female students’ results to calculate the average.

3.1.1.2.2.3 Word use: borrowings, ST-words and highly informal words

The male and female students both used some borrowings in their speech. The men used 6 borrowings, of which one was a mixture of Dutch and English. The women actually used 9 borrowings. Interestingly, the borrowing spoiler was conjugated like a Dutch verb. Table 4 gives an overview of all borrowings, highly informal and ST-words. The online dictionary

Dikke Van Dale was utilized to check whether the words were listed as Dutch words or were

considered to be borrowings.

Table 4. Use of borrowings, ST-words and highly informal words per gender.

Men Borrowings Women Borrowings Men ST-words Women ST-words

Chill Chill - Super kut ‘very crappy’

Holy shit Yes - Schijt ‘shit’

Yo Daddy issues

Crappy Shit (2x) Informal words Informal words

Dismanteling* Guilty pleasure Lulletje rozenwater ‘patsy’ Super vet ‘awesome’

Nice GI Joe Peukie ‘ciggie’

Colourized video Godsgruwelijk ‘god-awful’

Spoileren** Paffen ‘to smoke’

* Combination of the English verb to dismantle and the suffix -ing of the Dutch noun

ontmanteling ‘dismantling’, pronounced in a Dutch way.

** Combination of the English verb to spoiler and the suffix -en of a Dutch verb.

Both groups used the word God in their informal word use, but the female students obviously had more of a potty-mouth in this classroom, compared to the men.

(31)

3.1.2 Classroom setting B: with discussion

The second classroom activity that was recorded, began at 09:00 and ended at 10:45 in the morning. The topic of the class was Rhetoric Analysis. Again, the teacher explained theoretical information, asked the questions and the students at their turn gave answers and asked questions. During a coffee break, most of the students left the room and almost no speech was recorded during this time. Hence, this break was excluded from the analyses. However, after the break, the students were divided into groups of three or four to discuss a handed-out text. This discussion was analyzed separately from the rest of the lesson.

3.1.2.1 Method Participants

The lesson was attended by 17 Dutch students: 11 women and 5 men. The women’s ages ranged between 20 and 24, while the men were between 19 and 30 years old. The regions of Noord-Holland and Gelderland were represented by 10 students. The other students came from different provinces, for example from Zuid-Holland and Utrecht. The teacher was a young woman, 25 years old, who grew up in Utrecht.

Although the students and the teacher had several classes together and already knew each other, they came across as quite reserved. Especially during the first part of the seminar there was little interaction, except for the appointed participation turns.

Procedure

Similar to the other classroom recording, the recorder was placed in the room to record the group’s speech during the class. The lunch break, however, was excluded. During the group discussion, the recorder was placed close to one group. Hence, the classroom recording assessment was divided into two separate analyses: the linguistic interaction of 17 male and female students during the joint classroom activity, and the linguistic interaction between 2 female and 2 male students during the group discussion. Again, prior to the beginning of the class session, the students and the teacher filled in a questionnaire about their gender, age and province where they grew up.

Like the other classroom recording session, it was noted, whether a male or female student participated by means of an answer, question, comment and/or joke. The audible texts were transcribed and analyzed in accordance with the following research topics: participation, extended turns, interruptions, number of (tag) questions and answers per student. The

(32)

instructor’s speech was also analyzed, but less extensively compared to that of the students. The results of her speech were not combined with that of the female students.

3.1.2.2 Descriptive analysis: general observations

The lesson was divided into segments. The first part was dedicated to explaining the book chapters which the students had read as preparation, including questioning by the teacher, and responding by the students. A second part consisted of listening to and reading a speech by Obama, after which the students had to answer related questions. Later on, the students were divided into groups of three or four students each in order to discuss the Obama speech and complete an assignment, which was later discussed. During the discussions, the groups explained their findings. The lesson was ended up with some more questions and answers regarding the theoretical information. Especially during the first hour of the class, the students spoke softly, often whispering and creating moments of silence when they were not able to immediately answer the teacher. They seemed hesitant to answer or participate; only during the group discussion they started interacting more actively with each other and the teacher.

When it comes to the total participation in the classroom, the students’ share was 48% and the teacher’s share was 52%. From that percentage, the male students were responsible for 11%, and the female participants for 36%. In other words, men were responsible for 24% of the students’ participation and the women for 76%. The difference in participation may be explained by the fact that the men made up 29% of the 17 students and the women 65%.

3.1.2.2.1 Linguistic behavior During the class

In Table 5 an overview is given of the types of reactions that were observed during the classroom session.

Table 5. Types of reactions per gender.

Men Women

Number of turns 59 189

Type of reaction (%) (%)

Answers 59 38

Answers posed as questions 15 15

Men's and women's speech: fundamentally different?