DOMINANCE THEORY.
The classical Dominance theory! (Language and Gender) This particular theory focuses on ways how men
and women hold the most dominance, and it has come to a conclusion that in particular,
men hold the most dominance within a
mixed conversation with women. For instance, according to linguists Zimmerman
and West, men were more likely to interrupt than women by carrying out a study
that in eleven conversations, men used at least forty six interruptions, whereas in contrast women only using at
least two. This then resulted in
that men were more dominant within conversations, or perhaps this could be a
sign that patriarchy still continues today? According
to Lakoff, she claims this particular ‘Dominance approach’ women have ‘less as
the final word’ meaning that men were more likely to close the conversation, by
having the last final say.
Interested? Of course you are… Lakoff also claimed that
women tend to speak less in conversation, with fewer expletives, whereas men
they were more likely to include straight forward imperatives. According to
Lakoff, she claims that women’s language included more hedges and fillers such
as ‘sort of’ or ‘kind of’ rather than being straight forwards. Apologetic requests,
mitigated imperative (polite forms attached to it), tag questions ‘It’s so cold
there, isn’t it?’ more intensifiers such as ‘So’ or very’ blah blah blah, you
get the point. Ever
spoken to a women & she didn’t understand the pun? Ah yes you have, we’ve
all been there. Theoretically speaking, studies show that women tend to lack a
sense of humour within conversations. Perhaps they may do this to seem
feminine? Or perhaps they do this on purpose to not show their distinctive way
of thinking as it can reveal their ‘laddish’ side of understanding jokes.
AS
& A2 revision guide. Pg. 48 – Language and Gender.
This particular extract shows the dominance between men and
women, perhaps this extract can really tell if Lakoff as well as Zimmermans and
West’s research was necessarily true.
27th August, 1995
David: Right. Sue, you were a feminist in a past life, in your earlier
years. Can you tell us a little about that?
Sue: Yes. I think it is better to begin by telling you why I became a
feminist in the first place. It was mainly due to boredom. I was bored with the
normal female roles I had lived or had encountered, and so I joined a women's
group at about the age of twenty-three. I remember thinking at the time that
being a feminist had to be the highest a woman could go. It said to the world
that you were: political, direct, difficult, boundary-pushing, passionate,
strong, purposeful and courageous. But after two years of doing the rounds of
rallies, forums, journal writing, petitions, lobbying governments and so on, I
left. By then I knew that none of my ideas about feminism were correct.
David: You were part of a group, weren't you?
Sue: Yes, W.I.L.P.F.
David: And what's that?
Sue: Women's International League for Peace and Freedom.
David: Right.
Sue: It was mainly a peace group but it had feminist ideals behind
it, backing it - backing up their dogma.
David: And while you were there you fostered the normal feminist lines,
I suppose?
Sue: Oh, yes.
David: You believed that feminists were making sense?
Sue: Definitely. I believed that women were better, that they were
good, that they were the ones who had to take care of things. I really believed
that they were responsible human beings. I believed that they had to take more
of a place in history, of which they hadn't been given an opportunity before.
So I went in there very idealistic. The only trouble was it became very obvious
to me in a very short period of time that really nobody else there cared.
Nobody else was really interested in any of the higher ideals which I had -
which were not just about saving the world but about changing the basic
principles in the world. Call me naive, which I was, but I really believed
these things. I believed that the women involved with the group had the same
passion that I had. I left because I realized that that wasn't the case. More
importantly, I left because my enthusiasm was getting drained by these women.
Within this particular extract, you immediately perceive and
realise that it is taking place predominantly at the hour of judgement radio
series. As you can see, Sue was previously a feminist who is being interviewed
by a man via radio, therefore this could have negative connotations on David as
perhaps he could not be a fan of feminism by associating it with ‘pointless’. This is evident in the
language used by David through the use of the rhetorical ‘you believed that feminists were making sense?’ almost gives a
sense to the reader that he is making assumptions himself to think that
feminists do not make sense, or
perhaps he could stereotypically think that it is a pile of rubbish. However,
it is highly noticeable that David does not interrupt within this extract in
order to sound professional, as well as taking into account that it is an
interview, therefore David allows Sue to speak. The use of the interrogative ‘and
what’s that?’ almost gives a sense to the reader that David is pretending to be
interested, as this is evident as he ends the answer through the use of the
exclamation ‘right’ in order to acknowledge
a state or order.
The researches Linguists have carried out apply to this particular
transcript, although not every single research is evidence within this
transcript. For instance, you can perceive that David is the one who may be
listening, rather than dominating. In fact, Sue initiates by thinking that she
holds authority to speak. ‘’I think it is better to begin by telling you why I became a
feminist in the first place’’ illustrates
that she realises patriarchy and its certain aspects, therefore she could
perhaps realise that women really are EQUAL, so it could then result to her
thinking that she can hold the dominance, regardless of her gender.
No comments:
Post a Comment