GENDER VARIABLE IN REALIZATION OF DIRECTIVE SPEECH ACTS

Липар 82 (2023) (стр. 27-38)

АУТОР(И) / AUTHOR(S): Suzana S. Marković

Е-АДРЕСА / E-MAIL: suzanae@live.com

Download Full Pdf   

DOI: 10.46793/LIPAR82.027M

САЖЕТАК / ABSTRACT:

This paper deals with the gender variable in realization of directive speech acts, such as requests, suggestions, advice etc. The sample for this small-scale research consists of 328 instances of directive speech acts which are excerpted from the transcripts of selected dialogues of the popular US sitcom Friends and five American feature-length films. Directive speech acts are analyzed using Blum-Kulka et al’s classification (1989) and divided into three broad categories – direct, conventionally indirect, and non-conventionally indirect with many subcategories. The focus of this paper will be on direct strategies typically expressed with imperatives and on conventionally indirect directives usually expressed with interrogative sentences which include a suggestory formula and preparatory strategies, with special emphasis on their use in male and female language. The goal of the paper is to analyze and compare gender preferences in using different strategies for the realization of directives, with the assumption that women will be more thoughtful of the hearer’s face and use indirect forms more frequently than men. This is in line with Holmes’s (1995) characterization of women’s speech as more polite than men’s. The paper will analyze the use of these directive strategies in F-F interactions, M-M interac- tions, M-F interactions and F-M interactions. The illustrative examples will be analyzed using the theory of speech acts and politeness theory, using qualitative, quantitative and comparative research methods.

КЉУЧНЕ РЕЧИ / KEYWORDS:

directives, gender variable, indirect strategies, FTA, politeness

ЛИТЕРАТУРА / REFERENCES:

Source:
  • FR – Friends (1st season)
  • AW – Awakenings, 1990 (directed by Penny Marshall). CR – Crash, 2004 (directed by Paul Haggis)
  • DPS – Dead Poets Society, 1989 (directed by Peter Weir) MLS – Mona Lisa Smile, 2003 (directed by Mike Newell)
  • 13CAOT – Thirteen Conversations about One Thing, 2001 (directed by Jill Sprecher)
References
  • Austin 1962: J. Austin, How to do Things with Words, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Blum-Kulka and Olshtain 1984: Sh. Blum-Kulka and E. Olshtain, E. Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5 (3), 196–215.
  • Blum-Kulka 1987: Sh. Blum-Kulka, Indirectness and Politeness in Requests, Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 131–146.
  • Blum-Kulka et al. 1989: Sh. Blum-Kulka, J. House, and J. Kasper, Cross-cultural pragmatics: requests and apologies, Norwood: Ablex.
  • Boxer 2002: D. Boxer, Applying Sociolinguistics: Domains of Face-to-Face Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Brown 1980: P. Brown, How and why are women more polite: Some evidence from a Mayan community. In S. McConnell-Ginet, R. Borker, and N. Furman (eds.), Women and language in literature and society, New York: Praeger, 111–136.
  • Brown and Levinson 1987: P. Brown, and S. Levinson, Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambrigde University Press.
  • Emmison 1993: M. Emmison, On the analyzability of conversational fabrication: a conceptual inquiry and single case example. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 16, 83–108.
  • Georgakopoulou 2000: A. Georgakopoulou, On the sociolinguistics of popular cinema: funny characters, funny voices. Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 19, 119– 133.
  • Goodwin 1980: M. H. Goodwin, Directive-response speech sequences in girls’ and boys’ task activities. In McConnell-Ginet, S., Borker, R. and Furman, N. (eds.). Women and language in literature and society. 157–173. New York: NY Praeger.
  • Holmes 1995: J. Holmes, Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman.
  • Lakoff 1973: R. Lakoff, Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper and Row.
  • Lorenzo-Dus and Bou-Franch, 2003: N. Lorenzo-Dus, and P. Bou-Franch, Gender and politeness: Spanish and British Undergraduates’ Perceptions of Appropriate Requests. In J. Santaemilia (ed.). Genero, lenguaje y tradiccion. Valencia: Universitat de Valencia.
  • Macaulay 2001: M. Macaulay, Tough talk: Indirectness and gender in requests for information. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 293–316.
  • Marquez Reiter 2000: R. Marquez Reiter, Linguistic politeness in Britain and Uruguay A contrastive study of requests and apologies. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Mills 2003: S. Mills, Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Mišić Ilić and Dimitrijević 2006: B. Mišić Ilić, and M. Dimitrijević, Lice u ogledalu pragmatike: kako jezikom sačuvati obraz. In B. Čubrović and M. Daničić (eds.). Tematski zbornik Lice u jeziku, književnosti i kulturi, Philologia, 129–146.
  • Mišić Ilić 2010: B. Mišić Ilić, Jezički i kulturni aspekti govornog čina zabranjivanja iz ugla kontrastivne pragmatike. In Lj. Subotić i I. Živančević-Sekeruš (eds.). Zbornik radova sa Petog međunarodnog interdisciplinarnog simpozijuma Susret kultura, 436–470. Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet.
  • Panić Kavgić 2021: O. Panić Kavgić, Influence of directness and indirectness on verbal politeness and politic behaviour in subtitled translations from English into Serbian. Nasleđe, 48, 185–201.
  • Perović 1996: S. Perović, Engleski i srpskohrvatski jezik – indirektna pitanja u kontrastu. Nikšić: Unireks.
  • Perović 2009: S. Perović, Jezik u akciji. Podgorica: CID.
  • Quaglio 2008: P. Quaglio, Television dialogue and natural conversation: linguistic similarities and functional differences. In A. Adel and R. Reppen (eds.). Corpora and Discourse: The Challenges of Different Settings, 189–210. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Quaglio 2009: P. Quaglio, Television Dialogue: The Sitcom Friends vs. Natural Conversation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Romaine 2001: S. Romaine, Language in Society, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Schegloff 1988: E. Schegloff, Goffman and the analysis of conversation. In P. Drew and A. Wotton (eds.). Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order, Oxford: Polity Press, 89–135.
  • Searle 1969: J. Searle, Speech Acts: An essay in the philosophy of languagе, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Searle 1975: J. Searle, Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole and J. I. Morgan (eds.). Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech acts. 59–82. New York: Academic Press.
  • Watts 2005: R. Watts, Linguistic politeness research: Quo vadis?. In R. Watts, S. Ide and K. Ehlich (eds.). Politeness in Language. Studies in Its History, Theory and Practice, xi–xlvii. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Wolfson 1988: N. Wolfson, The bulge: a theory of speech behaviour and social distance. In J. Fine (ed.). Second Language Discourse: A Textbook of Current Research. 21–38. Nordwood: Ablex.