Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
If you’re “heppy” and you knowit, front your /ae/
Steve L. Johnson IIIMichigan State University
NWAV 35 - November 11, 2006
Outline
Gender in sociolinguistics
Gender in sociology
Pilot Study
Background
Gender-differentiated patterns oflanguage use “Gender Paradox” (Labov, 2001)
Wagner (2006), Eckert (1989)
Background, continued
Bem’s (1974) Sex Role Inventory
Bem’s (1981) Gender Schema Theory
McCrae and Costa (1997) Personality
Hypothesis
Individuals who score similarly on asurvey of gender traits will patternsimilarly in language use, regardless ofbiological sex
Northern Cities Shift
Northern Cities Shift
2
Participants
12 speakers (7 women and 5 men)
College students at MSU
Metro Detroit Area
Methodology
Self-rated survey of genderedpersonality traits
Reading Passage and Word List
Interview
F2 of /ae/ , 115 tokens
Self-Rating Sample
How well do the following terms describe youon a scale from 1 to 7. (1 meaning the termdoes not describe you at all and 7 meaningthat the term describes you very well)
e.g. affectionate: 1 = I am not at all affectionate ---------- 7 = I am very affectionate
Gendered TraitsWomen
AffectionateCheerful
CompassionateSoft spoken
ShySympathetic
GentleFeminine
UnderstandingWarm
Men
AnalyticalIndependentAmbitious
CompetitiveMasculineAssertiveAthletic
Self-reliantDominant
Aggressive
Results
Influence (r2 > 15%)
CheerfulWarmAffectionate-MasculineFeminineSympatheticCompassionateAmbitious
No Influence
GentleUnderstandingCompetitiveAthleticSelf-reliantAnalyticalAggressiveDominantShySoft spokenAssertiveIndependent
Influence of Cheerfulness
3
Masculinity vs. Femininity Indexes of Gender?
Add scores up for each gendered traitand group together to give a FemininityIndex and Masculinity Index.
Each index ranges from 7-70.
Applying the Indexes
203250John219750Gabby
204551Emma
F2 AveFemIndexName
Gabby vs John: p = .005
Gabby vs Emma: p=.025
Emma vs. John: p= .831
Summary /ae/-fronting is promoted among those who
have self-identified as cheerful, warm,affectionate, feminine, non-masculine,sympathetic, compassionate, and ambitious
All traits except for ambitious are traditionallyassociated with women
Gender Indexes do not seem to be sensitiveenough
Conclusion
Individual identity traits impact language use.
A more subtle examination of an individual’straits can be equally (or more) important thanthe use of traditional sociological variables.
Questions/Comments?
If you’re cheerful, affectionate, etc.,and you know it,
then your NCS will show it…
So if you’re “heppy” and you know it,front your /ae/!
4
ReferencesBem, Sandra. 1974. "The Measurement of Psychological Androgyny." Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology 42: 155-162.
Bem, Sandra. 1981. "Gender Schema Theory: A Cognitive Account of Sex Typing."Psychological Review 88 (4): 354-364.
Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). NEO PI-R. Professional manual. Odessa, FL:Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Eckert, Penelope. (1989). Jocks and burnouts: Social categories and identity in thehigh school. New York: Teachers College.
Labov, William. (2001). Principles of Linguistic Change: Social Factors. Oxford:Blackwell.
Wagner, Suzanne Evans. (2006). "We act like girls and we don't act like men": The use ofthe male-associated variable (ay0) in South Philadelphia. Paper presented at PLC 30,University of Pennsylvania, February 25 2006.