See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/300458068

Theorizing gender

Chapter · January 2002

DOI: 10.1075/pbns.93.17gio

CITATIONS READS

0 183

1 author:

Rachel Giora
Tel Aviv University
124 PUBLICATIONS   4,185 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Irony comprehension and prouction View project

Optimal Innovation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rachel Giora on 18 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 •

Theorizing gender
Feminist awareness and language change

Raehel Giora

1. Introduction

Most recent research into gender and language challenges the dominant sex-
difference oriented approaches which maintain that women are different from
men, whether essentially or by socialization (e.g., Coates 1986, 1996). This sex-
difference view either condemns women's different speech as socially dysfunc-
tional and deficient (e.g., Lakoff 1975; Kendall and Tanne~ 1996), or embraces
it as a 'different but equally valid' culture (e.g., Tannen 1990). The 'different
This is an offprint from: and deficient' approach is criticized for implying that, to improve their social
status, individual women should transform their style, and adjust themselves to
Bettina Baron and Helga Kotthoff (eds)
men's linguistic norms (e.g., Crawford 1996). Findings of difference have been
Gender in Interaction.
largely appropriated, and serve to oppress women: They either give rise to
Perspectives on femininity and masculinity in ethnography and discourse. industries of self-correction, or are misused to consolidate and justify women's
John Benjamins Publishing Company
inferior social position (Cameron 1996).
AmsterdamlPhiladelphia
2002 The apolitical cross-culture model (e.g., Maltz and Borker 1982; Henley and
Kramarae 1988, 1991; Tannen 1990) also implies affirmation of inequality:
(Published as V 01. 93 of the series
PRAGMATICS AND BEYOND NEW SERIES, Viewing women and men as belonging to two equally valid but different
ISSN 0922-842X) cultures calls for no change, thereby maintaining the prevailing social structure
(Troemel-Ploetz 1991). Thus, if 'communication failures' are a result of culture
ISBN 90 272 5112 6 (Hb; Eur.) / 1 58811 1105 (Hb; US) cross-blindness, no one is to blame. Indeed, analysis of talk about violence
© 2002 - John Benjamins B.Y. against women (acquaintance rape) reveals that such a view leads to victim
blaming, deflection of accountability from violent men, and a focus on moni-
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by toring women's but not men's behavior. After all, if women and men "hold
print, photoprint, microfilm or any other means, without written permission differen t sy tems of meanings about consent, 'miscommunication' is inevitable
from the publisher. and no on is ulp;1bl (or rape" (Crawford 1996: 175). Difference, concludes
,nm'ron (llL6), following I': k rl and M onnell-Ginet (1992), is a conse-
330 Raehel Giora • Theorizing gender 331

quence of inequality, and tolerance to difference propagates it: "To suppqse that But most importantly, women and men can be very much alike: Wetzel
[... ] if only we valued women's styles as highly as men's there would be no (1988) found that Japanese men speak very much like Western women. In fact,
problem, is reminiscent of right-wing pseudo-feminism which enjoins us to Freed (1992) accused Tannen (1990) of misrepresenting Maltz and Borker's
honor the housewife and mother for doing the most important job ... feminism (1982) and Goodwin's (1980) findings, presenting them as supporting a
is not about giving housewives their due, it is about changing the conditions of 'difference' theory, while the researchers themselves emphasized the similarity
domestic labor altogether" (Cameron 1996:44). between the sexes. Also, as Uchida (1992) notes, Tannen (1984, 1986) herself
Both the 'different and deficient' and 'different but equally valid' approach- showed that gender was not a significant factor in conversations between two
es, then, are problematic politically: They result in maintaining inequality. ethnic groups.
However, they are also inadequate as descriptive theories. There is a growing The alternative to the difference hypothesis, then, stresses the similarity
body of evidence (e.g., Ariel and Giora 1992a, b, 1998; Crawford 1996; Freed between the sexes.To show that women's and men's linguistic behavior is much
1992; Freed and Greenwood 1996) disconfirming the difference view. For more alike than different, Freed (1992) and Freed and Greenwood (1996)
example, the consensual belief that women are cooperative, employing address- examined the effect of social context on people's behavior. They focused on
ee-oriented speech behavior, whereas men are dominant, employing speaker- symmetric talk between friends of both sexes. Looking into the conditions of
oriented speech behavior (e.g., Maltz and Borker 1982; Cameron 1985; Coates use of two typically 'feminine' features of speech: 'You know' and questions,
1986; Tannen 1990; James and Drakich 1993; James and Clarke 1993; West they found no difference in amount and use of these hedges between women
1995), has not gained support (e.g., Ariel and Giora 1992a, b, 1998; James and and men. Rather, the use of these devices was found to be sensitive to situations,
Drakich 1993; James and Clarke 1993). Neither has the widely accepted and to vary with respect to the demand of the task.
association between women and standard speech and men and nonstandard In a similar vein, Crawford (1996: 17) proposes to view language as "a set of
speech (e.g., Eckert 1998; James 1996; Hibiya 1988; Rickford 1991; Salami strategies for negotiating the social landscape - an action oriented medium".
1991). Greenwood and Freed (1992: 206) found that "neither sex nor age alone This constructionist view (following Potter and Wetherelll987) conceptualizes
can account for the distinct variations" in using questions in conversation. Even gender as a system of social relations operating at the individual, social structur-
highly 'feminine' behavior, such as polite speech is not uniquely feminine. In al, and interactionallevels. Instead of focusing on isolated features of speech,
Javanese, for instance, women have been observed to behave more politely than constructionist oriented research centers on interactional analysis. "It opens the
men within family circles, but in public, it is men who behave more politely way for analyzing how social groupings, hierarchies, and power relations
(Smith-Hefner 1988). Moreover, a speaker's social identities may fluctuate structure interaction, constrain speakers' options, and affect the kinds of social
across a lifetime of communicative events. Trabelsi (1991), for instance, has feedback speakers receive" (Crawford 1996: 171). For Crawford, women's and
shown that young Tunis women employ speech markers which suggest identifi- men's speech is best conceptualized as a collaborative social activity rather than
cation with men and modernity. Older Tunis women manifest speech markers being grounded in essential individual traits.
which suggest that they identify with Tunis traditional values. Middle-aged However, conceptualizing speech as a collaborative social activity where
Tunis women waver between the two styles, depending on their interlocutors. each party has a(n equally valid) role, or designing an experimental environ-
In addition, Jabeur (1987) and Trabelsi (1991) found that young Tunis women ment which places women and men in symmetrical social tasks are just as
do not always align themselves with men. For instance, unlike Tunis men, they problematic as looking for differences. It masks the real problem. A homoge-
use French borrowings to project identification with freedom from Arab neous picture of similarity helps maintain the unequal social structure just as
society. "To summarize, then, part of a Tunis woman's communicative compe- much as the 'different but equal' approach does. The claim that women and
tence lies in managing a number of social identities. Because different identities men are more alike than different (e.g., Fuchs-Epstein 1988) may disguise the
may be of primary salience in a particular communicative event, her communi- problem of inequality, thereby implying that no change is necessary. Though
cative competence lies in choosing the linguistic variables that express these women and men may exhibit similar linguistic behavior in a given situation,
identities" (Meyerhoff 1996:206). this does not preclude the possibility that they act under different social
332 Rachel Giora Theorizing gender 333
"

constraints. For instance, women and men could behave alike, not b({.causethey 2. Self vs. Other point of view
are really alike, but because women, as a powerless social group, employ an
assimilation strategy and copy the ways and values of men. Or consider, again, What does it mean to adopt a self point of view in language? To adopt a self
Freed and Greenwood's (1996) findings. So far they have been able to show that point of view one should be oriented towards one's group's interests. Thus one
men can master 'feminine' or 'powerless' talk. However, it still remains to be should focus on ingroup rather than on outgroup members. Focusing on the
seen whether women and men will fare similarly when the task requires use of Self rather than on the Other predicts, among other things, that, in women's
what is considered 'masculine' or 'powerful' linguistic behavior (cf. Kendall and writings, female characters would outnumber male characters.
Tannen 1996). Findings of similarity, then, may be illusory, and may propagate Similarly, when one adopts a Self point of view, one's ingroup members
inequality just as findings of difference. If feminism is about changing the world should be foremost on one's mind. Linguistically this means that the Self should
- findings of similarity will not provide the right drive. serve as a point of reference to the Other. Thus, when anchoring one character
Apart from being problematic politically, the similarity hypothesis is also onto another ('X' is the anchor in 'X's friend', and 'friend' is anchored, e.g.,
problematic theoretically. Just as the difference hypothesis is deficient in Peter is Mary's friend), ingroup members should be assigned the role of
handling findings of similarity, so is the similarity oriented approach; it cannot anchors. Outgroup members should outnumber ingroup members in the role
handle findings of difference. of anchored, dependent characters. For female speakers, then, to have more
The basic weakness inherent in both hypotheses is that they mainly study male than female characters as anchored, and more female than male characters
features rather than strategies (and resultant features). Features are a superfi- in the role of anchors is to adopt a Self point of view.
cial and local phenomen0I:1:.They don't necessarily tell us much about the For the Self, all the Others are alike (e.g., Linville and Jones 1980), while
strategies which inspire them. Different surface behaviors may be induced by one's ingroup members are each distinct (e.g., Secord, Bevan and Katz 1956;
the same motivation, while similar styles may be a function of different Tajfel, Sheikh and Gardner 1964; Malpass and Kravitz 1969; Chance and
linguistic strategies. Goldstein 1975; Brigham and Barkowitz 1978; Stephen 1985). To adopt a Self
In recent studies (Ariel and Giora 1992a, b, 1998; Giora 1996, 1997) Mira point of view in this respect means to individuate ingroup members. Individu-
Ariel and I proposed to consider the interface of social identity (e.g., gender) ating can be achieved by e.g., naming. To adopt a Self point of view, female
and language. We focused on the relation of a certain linguistic behavior and its speakers should name more female than male characters. They should do so by
motivation, i.e., the strategy that induces it. We assumed, following group means of full or last names, since last names individuate characters much more
relation theories (e.g., Giles 1984; Tajfel1978) that (feminist) awareness should effectively than first names, because (in Western culture) there are many more
incite divergence strategy, while lack of it should result in convergence strategy. last than first names (see Weitman 1987).
For women divergence implies adopting a Self point of view in language, Portraying ingroup members as independent is adopting a Self point of
whereupon an ingroup member identifies with her own group's objectives, view, since (in Western culture, at least) dependency implies lack of control
values, and interests. Convergence implies adopting an Other point of view in over one's life. To adopt a Self point of view, women writers, especially fiction
language, whereupon an ingroup member identifies with an outgroup's writers (who need not be constrained by reality), should portray more women
objectives, values, and interests. Given group relations theories, then, nonfemi- than men as functional. In contrast, family descriptions, which portray an
nist female speakers would employ a convergence strategy, exhibiting a linguis- individual as part of a larger whole rather than as a self-sufficient entity, should
tic behavior similar to that of men's. In contrast, feminists' linguistic behavior be assigned to outgroup members.
would differ from both nonfeminist female and male speakers'. Upon such a For the Self,the Other may be conceived of as a means to an end: an object.
view feature similarities and differences are just a by-product. To adopt a Selfpoint of view, women should objectify men rather than women;
they should use more external descriptions (i.e., those based on look and bodily
characteristics) for male than for female characters, and use more sex-based
descriptions for males (e.g., 'male', as opposed to 'person') than for females.
334 Raehe1 Giora Theorizing gender 335

When one adopts a Self point of view, one's ingroup members should not While current theories predict either difference between women and men's
only play the role of protagonist (see above), but this protagonis1:should not be speech behavior (the difference hypothesis) or similarity between women and
destroyed or die. Between the options of being either a victim or an aggressor, men's speech behavior (the similarity hypothesis), a group relation based theory
ingroup members should not be victims. Rather, they should victimize out- has different predictions altogether. It groups nonfeminist female and male
group members. speakers on the basis of their similar speech products, and feminist female and
Being in power is considered a positive state in Western culture. Hence, male speakers on the basis of their similar strategy - setting from a Self point
between the alternatives of either being in control or under control of others, of view. Feminist and nonfeminist female speakers have nothing in common:
especially under control of outgroup members, a Self perspective should prefer neither speech nor strategy.
the former. To adopt a Self point of view, ingroup members should be por-
trayed as powerful, exerting power on outgroup members, e.g., by trying to
affect the Other's behavior, as in commands, or threats, or more generally by 3. Findings
using what Green (1975) has termed impositive speech acts (i.e., speech acts
which impose the speaker's will on the addressee). Moreover, an actual compli- 3-1 Style
ance of the addressee with the speaker's wish testifies to the speaker's power.
Hence, when outgroup members comply with the ingroup more than with One feature of style we looked into is introductory patterns. We examined how
outgroup members, this suggests setting out from a Self point of view. Thus, to Israeli female and male authors introduce female and male protagonists. Our
data come from short stories by Israeli women and men writers, both modern
adopt a Self point of view, women writers should portray more female than
male characters as powerful, i.e., as attempting to impose their will on male (1965-1982) and early, pre-state (1928-1940).1 Our data on introductory
characters, and more male than female characters complying with their will. patterns in feminist writing, come from a contemporary Israeli feminist
Cooperation involves acting in the best interest of another person. To adopt magazine, Noga (23, 1992), edited and written by feminist ~riters, catering to
a Self point of view, one should cooperate with ingroup rather than with a primarily female readership. As a nonfeminist counterpart to Noga, we chose
outgroup members (Tajfel 1978; Doise 1976; Dion 1979; Wyer and Gordon the most popular women's magazine, Laisha (2369, 1992: 5-56; 109-112). For
each text, we checked the number of characters and female characters and
1984). Speech may be cooperative when it is addressee-oriented, (e.g., speech-
acts such as offer, advice). To adopt a Selfpoint of view, one should be coopera- whether they received a description stemming for a Self or an Other point of
tive (e.g., advise or offer) when engaged with ingroup members. Or, one should view. To set out from a Self point of view, female authors should have given
obey ingroup rather than outgroup members' impositive speech acts. For their female characters a name, preferably a full or a last name, a functional as
women to adopt a Selfpoint of view, they should portray female characters who well as an anchoring description. Their male characters should have been given
cooperate with or obey female rather than male characters. a family description as well as external, sex-based, and anchored descriptions.
Given women's powerless social status, women may find it difficult to For an illustration of our analysis, consider the following translated examples:
substantiate their own perspective. We,therefore, expected nonfeminist women (1) a. His [anchoring] sister [family+anchored] Bilha [first name], who
speakers and writers to adopt an Other point of view. Adopting a convergence works with him, an architect [functional] too, a woman [sex-based]
strategy on the part of women should result in a speech product similar to divorced three times [family] (Hareven 1982: 14).
men's. Feminist speakers and writers, however, are expected to set out from a b. An ugly and noisy [external] woman [sex-based] (Oz 1965:45).
Self point of view, employing a divergence strategy. The result of such strategy
c. A woman [sex-based] to receivecustomers [functional]. An assistant
is a speech product different from men's. Since men make up the dominant
[functional] (Cahana-Carmon 1966: 115).
group, they should have no difficulty setting out from a Selfpoint of view, even
unknowingly. Our findings show that only male and feminist female authors tend to set out
from a Self point of view (female authors do it in 50% of the cases, male
336 Rachel Giora
• Theorizing gender 337

authors do it in 100% of the cases). Feminist authors iptroduce female of an hour and The awakening by Kate Chopin (1899/1976), Virginia Woolf's
characters applying similar descriptions used by men to introduce male
The voyage out (1915), A Room of One's Own (1929), Lappin and Lapinova
characters: Both name these characters (either using last or full names) and
(1939/1944: 60-68), The legacy (1940/1944: 107-114), Kritut (Divorce) by the
assign them functional and anchoring descriptions. Similarly, both introduce
Hebrew author Dvorah Baron (1943), To room nineteen by Doris Lessing
outgroup members by external, sex-based, family and anchored descriptions,
(1958), or The Bell Jar by SylviaPlath (1966)).
either failing to name them or giving them first names only. Though male and In contrast, later works allow for more violent female characters. Consider,
female feminist authors set out from the same (Self) point of view, their styles,
for instance, How did I get away with killing one of the biggest lawyers in the state?
as a result, are completely different.
It was easy by the African-American author Alice Walker (1971), The collector
Less-feminist writers adopt an Other point of view, resulting in a style
of treasures by the South African author Bessie Head (1977), Baby Blue by Edna
similar to men writers'. Both male writers and nonfeminist female writers
O'Brien (1978), the French film Jeanne Dielman by Chantal Akerman (1979),
describe women as outgourp members (giving them either first names or failing
Cry, the Peacock by the Indian writer Anita Desai (1980), the Dutch film A
to name them, assigning them external, sex-based, family and anchored
question of silence by Marleen Gorris (1982), the teleplay The burning bed by
descriptions), and men as ingroup members.2 While for male writers this style
Rose Leiman Goldemberg (1984, following the book by Faith McNulty), the last
is inspired by a Self point of view, for female writers having the same style is a
diet by Ellen Gilchrist (1986), Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe by
result of adopting a different strategy - setting out form an Other point of view
Fannie Flagg (1987), Blue Steel (Katherine Bigelow 1990), and Thelma and
(see also Ariel1988; Ariel and Giora 1992a, 1998).
Louise (Ridley Scott 1991, screenplay by Callie Khouri), Un crime maternel by
Fay Weldon (1991), The revenge, by the Singaporean author Catherine Lim
3.2 Narrative structure (1993), The golden snake by the Palestinian author Hanan Michaili Ashrawee
(1990), Women at point zero, by the Egyptian author Nawal El Saadawi (1975),
Another way of testing the above hypotheses (Section 2) is to investigate
The fall of the Imaam by the same author, (El Saadawi 1988), Malice, by Danielle
narrative structure and narrative change. Recall that the assumption is that
Steel (1996).3
(feminist) awareness - i.e., setting out from a Self point of view (for women)
In fact, by the early 1970s, the theme of 'getting even' has become a main
- should induce products different from men's and women's who lack such
stream topic in American movies about women. Abuse, particularly rape,
awareness. In Giora (1997), I looked into women's narratives dealing with
became "not only a deed deserving of brutal retribution, but a deed that women
abuse of female protagonists. According to the awareness hypothesis, feminist
themselves (not cops, boyfriends, or fathers) undertook to redress" (Clover
writers should portray female protagonists who defend themselves, retaliate or
1992:16). It seems that as feminism gets a stronger hold, women tend to set out
ruin their abusers instead of complying with the role of victim. Less-feminist
from a Self point of view more often, which affects narrative change from the
women writers should copy men's narratives in which the abused female male 'norm'.
protagonist accepts her victimhood and destroys herself instead of acting in self
Consider, however, another angle taken by Adrienne Rich (1973: 25), where
defense and harm her abuser (as do the suicidal heroines of Flaubert's (1955)
murder does not suffice, since it does not change the world:
Madame Bovary, or Tolstoi's (1951) Anna Karenine). The narratives studied
were short stories, novels, and scripts written by women before and after the The phenomenology of Anger
feminist revolution of the 1970s. It was assumed that women writers following Fantasies of murder: not enough:
the feminist revolution should be more affected by feminist awareness than to kill is to cut off from pain
women writing in the period preceding the feminist revolution. but the killer goes on hurting
Findings indeed support the hypothesis. They show that following the Not enough. When I dream of meeting
1970s, works by female authors portray more retaliating female characters than the enemy, this is my dream:
earlier works. Earlier works abound in self-destructive heroines (e.g., The story
338 Rachel Giora
.
------, ..----- Theorizing gender 339

white acetylene against the context, with the understanding that the very same act can be
ripples from my body •
perceived as less or more powerful, depending on the context. The linguis-
effortlessly released
tic components include (i) strength of illocutionary force (e.g., command
perfectly trained
versus suggest), (ii) the presence of mitigators (e.g., please) or intensifiers
on the true enemy
(e.g., come on), which either weaken or strengthen the speech act power,
raking his body down to the thread
of existence (iii) repetition and/or (iv) justification of the speech act, which imply lack
of compliance and hence speaker's powerlessness.
burning away his lie
leaving him in a new Partly following suggestions made by Brown and Levinson (1987), the
world; a changed contextual aspects included (i) the speaker's relative status vis-a-vis the
man. addressee (the power of the speech act depends on whether it is uttered by
a superior to an inferior or vice versa), (ii) the relative intimacy/distance
between them (a command issued to an intimate is less powerful than when
3.3 Power and cooperation
the recipient is a stranger), (iii) the extent to which it is necessary to
To examine the way women and men manipulate power and cooperation in perform the act (extinguishing a fire, as opposed to closing the door), and
conversation, male and female characters' speech in scripts written by Israeli (iv) the degree of imposition required in order to comply with the imposit-
female and male script-writers during the late 1980s was analyzed (see Ariel and ive speech act (e.g., bringing some water in the desert as opposed to
Giora 1992b, 1998). The focus was on impositive speech acts (Green 1975), bringing it from the kitchen).
because impositive speech acts encode power and cooperation (e.g., threaten, d. Rate of compliance by the addressee.
command, demand, request, warn, reprimand, suggest, advise, instruct, Who obeys whom by actually performing the act requested?
indirectly command, indirectly request, indirectly suggest, mutually command, e. Rate of cooperation with addressee.
order, soothe, mutually suggest, mutually advise, invite, offer, ask for permis- Who issues to whom more cooperative speech acts?
sion, remind, beg). A command indicates a relatively powerful speaker. Begging
indicates that the speaker is relatively powerless. Giving advice or offering The translated examples in (2) below illustrate how impositive speech acts
something to the addressee show some concern for the addressee, and are thus were analyzed:
indicators of the speaker's cooperation with him. Note that power and coopera-
(2) a. Rosy to Eli: Enough already [command], ass hole [intensifier]
tion are not mutually exclusive. Begging implies a powerless speaker, but not a (Gabison and Aroch 1989: 27).
cooperative one, while suggesting, which implies a more powerful speaker, is a b. Frieda to Simcha: You know what? Go lie down [suggestion]. We'll
cooperative speech act. All the impositive speech acts in seven Israeli movie continue some other time [justification] (Zvi-Riklis 1984: 73).
scripts written during the late 1980s were examined for manifestations of Self
c. Tmira to Elit: Tell her again that I'm sorry ... [request] Elit, tell her
point of view in speakers' attempts to impose their will on others. The parame- I'm sorry [request + repetition] (Yaron-Grunich 1987: 26).
ters of power and cooperation included:
Given that the female script writers of the late 1980s must be (at least partially)
a. Power relations between the speaker and the addressee.
influenced by feminist ideas, it was predicted that this awareness should affect
The speaker may be superior, equal or inferior in status to the addressee.
the way their female and male characters speak. More specifically, given the Self
b. Amount of talk.
perspective hypothesis, female characters in female writers' scripts should exert
Who holds the floor and issues more impositive speech acts? power over male characters and cooperate with female characters.
c. Power of speech act. We collected our data from Schorr and Lubin (1990) who assorted scripts
The speech act power is a function of linguistic components measured written during the 1980s.4 Results support the hypothesis only partly. They
340 Rachel Giora Theorizing gender 341

show that, contrary to the Self perspective hypothesis, female characters in Our analysis does not preclude the possibility that women's and men's
female writers' scripts do not exert power over male characters. Rather, when language may both differ and be similar in terms of 'features'. Rather, the
they can, they exert power over equaly powerful or weaker characters, such as proposal is to avoid considering 'features' on their own, without studying the
ingroup members (i.e., women) and children. In this respect, their characters social constraints that either allow or disallow them. Our analysis neither
adhere to the male oriented perspective. That is, both female and male script precludes the possibility of evaluating findings in different ways. For example,
writers produced female characters who obey male characters, and male and for women to set out from an Other point of view may result in products
female characters who exert power over female characters. However, while for similar to men's, i.e., using a male-biased portrayal of women, which, in
female writers this means setting out from an Other point of view, for male themselves depict women as different from men. Features then don't tell us
writers this means adopting a Selfpoint of view. Here, again, adopting different much. What we have tried to show is that the question of interest is what
strategies results in similar products. motivated a certain feature:
However, when it comes to cooperation, female writers do adopt a Self In the realms of social identities relatively low rank may be universally
point of view: Their female characters cooperate with ingroup rather than with linked to stances and acts of accommodation. Interlocutors may universal-
outgroup members. In this respect, they adopt a strategy similar to that of male ly display lower rank through displays of attention and willingness to take
script writers' whose male characters too cooperate with male rather than with the point of view of a higher-ranking party or otherwise meet that party's
female characters (adhering to a Self point of view). wants or needs. By implication, these same stances and acts of accommo-
While male writers always set out from a Self point of view, women, being dation universally mark the other party's higher rank. Higher rank as well
a powerless group, may find it difficult. The feminist awareness of the Israeli may be universally linked to rights to direct others through such acts as
female script writers of the late 1980s allowed them to set out from a Self point ordering and summoning (Ochs 1996:426).
of view only partly, thus producing only partial change from the stereotypic But since "members of societies are agents of culture rather than merely bearers
male 'norm'. They created female characters who diverge from the stereotype of a culture that has been handed down to them and encoded in grammatical
upon which women are cooperative across the board, not least with men (a form" (ibid, p. 416), language users may change the world by projecting their
stereotype made manifest in the male writers' scripts). own point of view.
We have only to look at the language of working women in management
positions to see how their language practices constitute alternative concep-
4. In conclusion tions of leadership in the workplace (e.g. decision making as consensual
versus authoritarian); or take a look at minority and female lawyers whose
Our findings, thus, pose a problem for both the similarity and difference insistence on the use of personal narrative in legal argumentation challeng-
hypotheses. The difference hypothesis predicts that differences should cluster es status quo expectations. Language socialization is potent in that it is our
around the gender dichotomy, thereby failing to account for the similarity- human medium for cultural continuity and change" (ibid, p. 431).
based findings. The similarity-hypothesis fails in that it obscures difference in Though to adopt one's own point of view (at least to a certain extent) is a
the strategies employed. Our findings (and others') are best accounted for in . rational strategy, the one we should all aspire to substantiate, because, among
terms of adopting different strategies, i.e., different points of view in language. other things, it will make the world a better place for those whose point of view
The more aware the female writers, the more extensively they diverge from the is suppressed, this strategy may not be equally available to all language users. In
'norm', setting out from a Self point of view. This interpretation of the findings this respect, powerless groups such aswomen and other minorities differ from the
using Self versus Other points of view as a classifying criterion, categorizes male dominant group. They are more constrained. They,may, however, compen-
feminists, nonfeminist women, and men quite differently. Both men and sate themselves for their lack of autonomy by developing a social awareness. Still,
feminists behave alike in that they adopt a Self point of view. In contrast, even this may be too difficult to follow.Socialpressures might be too punitive, and
nonfeminist women adopt an Other point of view. women and other powerless groups compromise at times and assimilate.
342 Rachel Giora Theorizing gender 343

Notes • Laisha 2369

1992 (Sept. 7) A weekly women's magazine.
Menahemi, Ayelet
1. The early women writers are Baron (1943), Bichovsky (l976) and Puchachevsky (1930:
1987 Orvim [Crows]. In R. Schorr and O. Lubin (eds.), 115-160.
59-168). The modern women writers are: Cahana-Carmon (1966) the first eleven stories,
Noga 11
Almog (1969, 1971:7-19) and Hareven (1982). The early men writers are: Shoffman
1985 (March) A bi-annual feminist magazine.
(l942:11-170), Smilansky (l934, 1955:117-137) and Steinberg (1957:219-263). The
Noga23
modern men writers are: Oz (l965), the first seven stories, Yehoshua (l972), the first five
1992 (Winter) A bi-annual feminist magazine.
stories and Ben- Ner (1980). The year of publication of the early writers usually documents
OZ,Amos
the collected writings of the author rather than the original date of publication. The basis for
1965 Artzot ha-tan [Jackal countries], 9-159. Ramat-Gan: Massada.
selection was the historical fame of the authors. They all appear in anthologies that reflect the
Puchachevsky, Nechama
spirit of their time.
1930 Ba-kfar u-va-avoda [In the village and at the workplace]. Tel-Aviv: Hedim.
2. This description does some injustice to early female writers writing during the 1930s. Schorr, Renen and Lubin, Orly (eds.)
Their plots and themes were affected by feminist awareness. However, their awareness was 1990 Tasritim 1 [Scripts 1]. Tel-Aviv: Kineret.
insufficient to induce style change. Shoffman, Gershon
3. Note that the feminist awareness of the early female authors was insufficient to allow for 1942 Be-terem arga'a [Before relaxing]. Tel-Aviv: Am-Oved.
a narrative change. Recall that this is the case with the early Israeli female authors who did Smilansky, Moshe
not challenge men's style (see note 1). 1934 Bnei-Arav [The Arabs]. Tel-Aviv: Hitachdut-Haikarim.
4. The women script writers are: Menahemi (1987), Troppe (l986), Yaron-Grunich (l987) Smilansky, Moshe
and Zvi-Riklis (l984). The men script writers are: Gabison and Aroch (l989), Heller (l986) 1955 Im preda [On departing]. Tel-Aviv: Tversky.
and Waxman, Haspary and Levins (l987). Stcinberg, Ya'akov
1957 Kol kitvey Ya'akov Steinberg [The collected writings ofYa'akov Steinberg]. Tel-
Aviv: Dvir.
Troppe, Zippi
1986 Tel-Aviv Berlin Unpublished manuscript.
References Waxman, Daniel, Haspary Shimon and Levins R.
1987 Ha-meyuad [The Designate]. Unpublished manuscript.
Hebrew Yaron-Grunich, Nirit
1987 Yalda Gdola [Big Girl]. In R. Schorr and O. Lubin (eds.), 25-58.
Almog, Ruth Ychoshua, A.B.
1969 Chasdey ha-Iaila shel Margarita [The night favors ofMargarita]. Tel Aviv: Tarmil. 1972 9 sipurim [9 stories], 9-156. Ramat-Gan: Hakibbutz Hameuchad.
1971 Be-eretzgzera [In a punishment land]. Tel-Aviv: Am-Oved. /.vi-Riklis, Dina
Baron, Dvora
1984 Coordania. In R. Schorr and O. Lubin (eds.), 59-84.
1943 Le-et ata. [For now]. Tel-Aviv: Am-Oved.
Other
Bichovsky, Elisheva ,
1976 Mikre tafel ve-chamisha sipurim acherim [A minor case and another five stories]. Arid, Mira
Tel-Aviv: Tarmil.
1988 "Female and male stereotypes in Israeli literature and media: Evidence from
Cahana-Carmon, Amalya
introductory patterns". Language and Communication 8 (1): 43-68.
1966 Bi-chfifa achat [Together], 9-117. Tel-Aviv: Sifriyat Hapoalim.
Arid, Mira and Giora, Rachel
Gabison, Shimon and Jonathan Aroch
1992a "The role of women in linguistic and narrative change: A study of the Hebrew
1989 Shuru [Look]. Unpublished manuscript.
pre-state literature". Journal of Narrative and Life History 2: 309-332.
Hareven, Shulamit
1992b "Gender versus group-relation analysis of impositive speech acts". In Locating
1982 Bdidut [Loneliness]. Tel-Aviv: Am-Oved.
Heller, Gur Power: Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women and Language Conference, April
4 and 5 1992, K. Hall, M. Bucholtz and B. Moonwomon (eds.), Vol. I: 11-22.
1986 Seret laila [Night movie]. In R. Schorr and O. Lubin (eds.), 85-114.
Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.
344 Rachel Giora Theorizing gender 345

1998 "A Self versus Other point of view in language: Redefining femininity and ence, April 4 and 51992, K. Hall, M. Bucholtz and B. Moonwomon (eds.),Vo!. 1:
masculinity". International Journal of the Sociology of Language 129: 59-86. 89-99. Berkeley, CA.
Bergvall, Victoria L., Janet M. Bing and Alice F. Freed Freed, F. Alice
1996 Rethinking Language and Gender Research: Theory and Practice. London and New 1992 "We understand perfectly: A critique of Tannen's view of cross-sex communica-
York: Longman. tion". In Locating Power: Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women and Language
Brigham, J. c. and Barkowitz, P. Conference, April 4 and 51992, K. Hall, M. Bucholtz and B. Moonwomon (eds.),
1978 "Do 'they all look alike'? The effect of race, sex, experience and attitudes on the Vo!. 1: 144-152. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.
ability to recognize faces". Journal of Applied Social Psychology 8: 306-18. f.reed, Alice and Greenwood, Alice
Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Steven 1996 "Women, men and type oftalk: What makes the difference?" Language in Society
1987 Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 25: 1-26.
Cameron, Deborah Fuchs Epstein, Cynthia
1985 Feminist and Linguistic Theory. London: Macmillan Press. 1988 Deceptive Distinctions: Sex, Gender, and the Social Order. New Haven: Yale
1996 "The language-gender interface: Challenging co-optation". In Bergvall et a!. University press.
(eds.),31-53. Ciles, Howard
Cameron, Deborah, McAlinden, Fiona and O'Leary, Kathy 1984 "The dynamics of speech accommodation". International Journal of the Sociology
1988 "Lakoff in context: The social and linguistic functions of tag questions". In of Language 46.
Women in Their Speech Communities, J. Coates and D. Cameron (eds.), 74--93. Ciora, Rachel
New York: Longman. 1996 "Fe/male interviewing styles in the Israeli media". Rask Supplement 1: 171-197.
Chance, J.E. and Goldstein, A. G. 1997 "Feminist awareness and narrative change: Suicide and murder as transitional
1975 "Differential experience and recognition memory of faces". Journal of Social stages towards autonomy in women's protest writing". Israel Social Science
Psychology 97: 243-253. Research 12 (1): 73-92. [Reprinted under the title "Selbstmord und Mord in der
Clover, C. Frauen-Protestliteratur". In Hexenjagd: Weibliche Krimin"alitat in den Medien, P.
1992 "Getting even". Sight and Sound May: 16-18. Henschel und U. Klein (eds.), 178-195. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.
Coates, Jennifer Coodwin, Marjorie Harness
1986 Women, Men and Language. London: Longman. 1980 "Directive-response speech sequences in girls' and boys' task activities". In
1996 Women Talk. Oxford: Blackwel!' Women and Language in Literature and Society, S. McConnell-Ginet, R. Broker
1998 Language and Gender. Oxford: Blackwell. and N. Forman (eds.), 157-173. New York: Praeger.
Crawford, Mary (; reen, Georgia
1996 Talking Difference: On Gender and Language. London: Sage. 1975 "How to get people to do things with words". In Syntax and Semantics Vo/. 3:
Crawford, Mary, and Gressley, Diane Speech Acts, P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.), 107-142. New-York: Academic
1991 "Creativity, caring and context: Women's and men's accounts of humor Press.
preferences and practices". Psychology of Women Quarterly 15: 217-232. Creenwood, Alice and Freed, Alice F.
Dion, K.L. 1992 "Women talking to women: The functions of questions in conversation". In
1979 "Intergroup conflict and intergroup cohesiveness". In The Social Psychology of Locating Power: Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women and Language Confer-
Intergroup Relations, W. Austin and S. Worchel (eds.), 212-224. Monterey, CA.: ence, April 4 and 51992, K. Hall, M. Bucholtz and B. Moonwomon (eds.), Voll.:
Brooks/Cole. 197-206. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.
Doise, W. Ilenley, Nancy and Kramarae, Cheris
1976 L'articulation psychosociologique et les relations entre groupes. Brussels: De Baeck. 1988 "Miscommunication: Issues of gender and power". Paper presented at the
Eckert, Pen elope meetings of the National Women's studies Association, Minneapolis, June.
1998 "Gender and sociolinguistic variation". In Language and Gender, J. Coates (ed.), 1991 "Gender, power and miscommunication". In Miscommunication and Problematic
64--75. Oxford: Blackwell. Talk, N. Coupland, H. Giles, and J.M. Wienmann (eds.), 18-43. Newbury Park,
Eckert, Penelope and McConnell-Ginet, Sally CA: Sage.
1992 "Communities of practice: Where language, gender, and power all live". In Ilibiya, Junko
Locating Power: Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women and Language Confer- 1988 A Quantitative Study of Tokyo Japanese. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation.
University of Pennsylvania.
346 Rachel Giora Theorizing gender 347

Jabeur, M. Salami, L. Oladipo

1987 A Sociolinguistic Study in Tunisia. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation. University of 1991 "Diffusion and focusing: Phonological variation and social networks in Ife Ife
Reading. Nigeria". Language in Society 20: 217-45.
James, Deborah and Clarke, Sandra S . 'md, P.F., Bevan W. and Katz, B.
1993 "Women, men and interruption: A critical review". In Gender and Conversation- 1956 "The negro stereotype and perceptual accentuation". Journal of Abnormal and
al Interaction, D. Tannen (ed.), 231-280. New York: Oxford University Press. Social Psychology 53: 78-83.
James, Deborah and Drakich, Janice Smith-Hefner, Nancy J.
1993 "Understanding gender differences in amount of talk". In Gender and Conversa- 1988 "Women and politeness: The Javanese example". Language in Society 17:535-554.
tionalInteraction, D. Tannen (ed.), 281-312. New York: Oxford University Press. Stcphen, W. G.
Kendall, Shari and Tannen, Deborah 1985 "Intergroup relations". In Handbook of Social Psychology, VoL 2, G. Lindzey and
1996 "Gender and language in the workplace". In Gender and Discourse, R. Wodak E. Aronson (eds.), 599-658. New York: Random House.
(ed.), 81-105. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 'l:lI1nen, Deborah
Lakoff, Robin 1984 Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk among Friends. Norwood: Ablex.
1975 Language and Women's Place. New York: Harper and Row. 1986 That's Not What I Meant! How Conversational Style Makes or Breaks Your
Linville, P.W. and Jones, E. E. Relations with Others. New York: Morrow.
1980 "Polarized appraisals of outgroup members". Journal of Personality and Social 1990 You Just Don't Understand. New York: Morrow.
Psychology 38: 689-704. 'I:\jrcl, Henri (ed.)
Malpass, R. S. and Kravitz, J. 1978 Differentiation Between Social Groups. London: Acadcmic Prcss.
1969 "Recognition for faces of own and other races". Journal of Personality and Social '1:ljfcl, Henri, Sheikh, A.A. and Gardner, R.e.
Psychology 131: 330-334. 1964 "Content of stereotypes and the inference of similarity between mcmb'rs of
Maltz, D. N. and Borker, R. A. stereotyped groups". Acta Psychologica 22: 191-201.
1982 "A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication". In Language and 'I'rabelsi, Chedia
Social Identity,
Press.
n Gumperz (ed.), 196-216. New York: Cambridge University 1991 "De quelques aspects du langage des femmes de Tunis". International Joumal oj'
the Sociology of Language 87: 87-98.
Meyerhoff, Miriam 'I'rocmel- Ploetz, Senta
1996 "Dealing with gender identity as a sociolinguistic variable". In Bergvall et aL 1991 "Selling the apolitical". Discourse and Society 2:489-502.
(eds.),202-227. lJ 'hida, Aki
O'Barr, William and Atkins, Bowman K. J 992 "When 'difference' is 'dominance': A critique of the 'anti-power-based' cultural
1980 "'Women's language' or 'powerless language'?" In Women and Language in approach to sex differences". Language in Society 21: 547-568.
Literature and Society, S. McConnell-Ginet, R. Broker and N. Forman (eds.), Wcilman, Sasha
93-110. New York: Praeger. 1987 "Prenoms et orientations nation ales en Israel, 1882-1980". Annales Economies-
Ochs, Elinor Societe-Civilisations 42 (4): 879-900.
1996 "Linguistic resources for socializing humanity". In Rethinking Linguistic Relativi- W 'st, Candace
ty, J. J. Gumperz and S. C. Levinson (eds.), 407-37. Cambridge: Cambridge 1995 "Women's competence in conversation". Discourse and Society 6: 105-131.
University Press. W '(zel, Patricia J.
Potter, Jonathan and Wetherell, Margaret 1988 "Are "powerless" communication strategies the Japanese norm?" Language in
1987 Discourse and Social Psychology. London: Sage. Society 17: 555-564.
Rich, Adrienne Wycr, R. S. and Gordon, S. E.
1973 Diving into The Wreck. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. 1984 "The cognitive representation of social information". In Handbook of Social
Rickford, John R. Cognition, VoL 2, R. S. Wyer and T. K. Srull (eds.), 11-149. Hillsdale, N.J.:
1991 "Sociolinguistic variation in Cane Walk". In English around the World: Socio- Erlbaum.
linguistic Perspective, J. Cheshire (ed.), 609-16. Cambridge: Cambridge Universi-
ty Press.
III th PRA MATI AND BEYOND NEW SERIES the following titles have been
puhlished t'hlls fur:

77. V ANI)Jl.I~VEJ(EN, Daniel and Susumu KUBO (eds.): Essays in Speech Act Theory. 2002.
'Ill. ,'11,1,1"I~0l:\'r 1 . : Literature as Communication. The foundations of mediating criticism.
,000.
Ill. A N I )j1,I\SliN, isle andThorsteinFRETHEIM (eds.): PragmaticMarkersandPropositional
/Ill/lilt/I'. 000.
HO, II NCIIRER, Friedrich (ed.): English Media Texts-Past and Present. Language and textual
.'/mc/llre. 2000.
HI. 1)1 LUZI ,Aldo, Susanne GONTHNERandFrancaORLETTI (eds.): Culture in Commu-
lIil'lIlion. Analyses of intercultural situations. 2001.
11•. 1(1JAUL, Esam N.: Grounding in English and Arabic News Discourse. 2000.
11,\. M I~ UEZ REITER, Rosina: Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay. A contrastive
$11/1/)' of requests and apologies. 2000.

11/1. A N I EI{SEN, Gisle: Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation. A relevance-theoretic

IIppronch to the language of adolescents. 2001.

11:,. COLI.I NS, Daniel E.: Reanimated Voices. Speech reporting in a historical-pragmatic
/)(·r$/Jl'cIJJle. 2001.
H(,. IIIANTI D D, EUy: Evidentials and Relevance. 2001.

11'1.M USll1 N, llana: Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance. Narrative retelling. 2001.
HH. IIAYRAKTAROGLU, Arm and Maria SIFIANOU (eds.): Linguistic Politeness Across
1Il1ll1ldnries.The case of Greek and Turkish. 2001.
11I). IT A I RA, Hiroko: Conversational Dominance and Gender. A study of] apanese speakers
ill flrsl and second language contexts. 2001.
l)(). n:N I':SEl, lstvan and Robert M. HARNISH (eds.): Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics,
II/lr! 1 iscourse. A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer. 2001.
I) I. (;I{ )SS, loan: Speaking in Other Voices. An ethnography ofWalloon puppet theaters. 2001.

I) •• (:AR Nm{, Rod: When Listeners Talk. Response tokens and listener stance. 2001.
I) I. IIAI\ N, Beuina and Helga KOTTHOFF (eds.): Gender in Interaction. Perspectives on
r'llIillinil)' and masculinity in ethnography and discourse. 2002
1)11. M') LVENNY, Paul (ed.): Talking Gender and Sexuality. n.y.p.
')h. I1IT/',MAURICE, Susan M.: The Familiar Letter in Early Modern English. A pragmatic
1//1/lrllOch.n.y.p.
l}(" IIA VERKATE, Henk: The Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics of Spanish Mood. n.y.p.
'1'1, MAY NARD, Senko K.: Linguistic Emotivity. Centrality of place, the topic-comment
t/IIIIII/li , cmd an ideology of Pathos in Japanese discourse. n.y.p.
1111.I >USZAK, Anna (ed.): Us and Others. Social identities across languages, discourses and
1'/1/1/11' s. n.y.p.
I)i), }A,'ZCZ LT, K.M. and Ken TURNER (eds.): Meaning Through Language Contrast.
\101/1111' I. n.y.p.
I tlO, IA,'I. 'Z L'T', K.M. and Ken TURNER (eds.): Meaning Through Language Contrast.
\lU/llllle 2, n.y.p.
III I, l,lJKli, Kan rKwongandTheodossia-SoulaPAVLIDOU(eds.): Telephone Calls. Unity and
"11I1'I'"il)' ill conversational structure across languages and cultures. n.y.p.
10 I, I,Jl.A11(;I{EN, John: Degrees of Explicitness. Information structure and the packaging of
IIlIl,qlll'il/lIsl/biecls and objects. n.y.p.
10 I, i111:I'ZJl.I(,A ita and Christiane MEIERKORD
11 (eds.): Rethinking Sequentiality. Linguistics
11/1'1'1.; 1'tI1I11I'I'SI/I
ional interaction. n.y.p.
111,1,III/,II,(:111N ;, Kat:c: ',ender, Politeness and Pragmatic Particles in French. n.y.p.

\ 111111~111111 III NiJllhllNh

View publication stats 1<1 illlhis Hcri s iHavailabJefrom the publisher.