17. SALLY MCCONNELL-GINET, Cornell University
Language and the Sexes
Linguistics/Women's Studies 244
Spring 1989, MWF 11:15
We will explore connections between language (use) and gender/sex
systems, examining a variety of theoretical perspectives,
methodologies, and findings in recent research and writing. Readings,
lectures, and class discussion will draw on work in linguistics,
anthropology, philosophy, psychology, sociology, literature, and
general women's studies and feminist theory that addresses questions
such as the following: How do patterns of speaking and interpreting
reflect, perpetuate, and create our experience of gender? How does
gender interact with race, class, socioeconomic status, age,
occupational and social/familial roles, institutional settings, and other
factors? How does gender connect to linguistic change? What do
controversies about sexism and other biases in language suggest about
the connections between language, thought , and socially situated
political struggles? How are meanings produced and reproduced,
negotiated and legitimated? What is the role of language in the
development of theory and of ideology? Participants will also learn
(and use) some techniques for analysis of conversational and written
All course participants will be responsible for (and graded on)
a. Regular class attendance and participation in discussion; Fridays
will typically be devoted to discussion though Monday and
Wednesday lectures will also allow for some discussion.
b. Required readings. The readings will be available from Quoin
Copy, 117 Dryden Road. Readings will also be on reserve in Uris
Library and in Women's Studeies, Uris Hall 333.
c. Three "hands-on" projects to be presented for class discussion on
Frebruary 17, March 31, and April 28. Written reports, reflecting
class discussion as well as prior research, will be due a week later.
Two of these will involve taping and transcribing conversations and
analyzing them, and one will involve analysis of written materials.
You will receive more detailed instructions on these assignments soon.
d. Two mid-terms, based on take-home questions: March 3, April 14.
e. An end-of-term project or research paper, collective or individual.
Brief (one-page) but detailed proposals for the term project or paper
are to be submitted no later than March 10.
An S/U requires "passing" work quality on all three requirements
(including attendance and participation); for letter grades, the
weighting is roughly as follows: participation (15%), "hands-on"
projects (40%), midterms (20%), final project or paper (25%).
Extensions/make-ups for projects and midterms not allowed (except in
exceptional circumstances); extension possible (but not encouraged)
for final paper or project.
SEMESTER SYLLABUS OF TOPICS AND READING
Week 1 Overview and Orientation
We will begin by looking at some general methodological and
theoretical issues raised in the study of language as it interacts with
gender/sex. The paper by me and that by Thorne, Kramarae, and
Henley show something of the scope and development of recent
research and thinking about gender and language but emphasize
conversational usage in the American context. Borker, in contrast,
puts cross-cultural diversity in focus and also draws attention to the
wide range of ways in which language enters into human lives and
thought. Finally, the selection from Kramarae and Treichler describes
a recent project of compiling a dictionary of "women's words". On
Friday, January 27, Professor Paula Treichler of the University of
Illinois, who is coauthor of that reading, will speak on "Creating 'A
Feminist Dictionary' ". Paula Treichler is a Senior Fellow at the
Society for the Humanities this spring.
McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 1988. Language and gender. IN Newmeyer,
Frederick J., ed. Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey IV, Language:
The Sociocultural Context (New York: Cambridge University Press,
Thorne, Barrie, Cheris Kramarae, and Nancy Henley. 1983.
Language, gender, and society: Opening a second decade of research.
In Thorne, Barrrie, Cheris Kramarae, and Nancy Henley, eds.
Language, Gender, and Society (Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1983)
(hereafter LG&S), 7-24.
Borker, Ruth. 1980. Anthropology: Social and cultural perspectives.
In McConnell-Ginet, Sally, Ruth A. Borker and Nelly Furman, eds.,
Women & Language in Literature and Society (New York: Praeger
and Greenwood, 1980) (hereafter, W&L), 26-44.
Kramarae, Cheris and Paula A. Treichler. 1985. Words on a feminist
dictionary. In Kramarae, Cheris and Paula A. Treichler, eds. with
assistance from Ann Russo, A Feminist Dictionary (Boston, London
and Henley: Pandora Press), 1-22.
Week 2 "Women's language": Scholarly and folklinguistic views
Traditional grammarians, dialectologists, and other writers on
language have not always agreed on substance of differences linked to
speaker sex but have generally seen women as "special" (and usually
"devalued") language users. Jespersen's survey is relatively benign
and introduces some ideas that continue to be important: e.g. a focus
on sex-differentiated work, mobility, interests, and values. Baron
examines other writings predating Jespersen, and Coates looks at early
work by anthropological linguists and dialectologists. Lakoff's more
recent feminist-inspired proposals have been very influential; though
adopting different explanatory frameworks from those prevalent in
more traditional research, she also presents "women's language" in
English as the marked case (and women as deficient speakers);
compare her picture of women speaking English with Jespersen's.
Valian is critical of Lakoff's failure to discriminate language systems
from their use; Stanback draws attention to neglect of ethnic diversity.
We will later consider other responses, direct and indirect, to Lakoff's
discussion of "women's language".
Jespersen, Otto. 1922. Chapter 13, The woman. IN Language: Its
Nature, Development, and Origin, 237-55.
Baron, Dennis. 1986. Chapter 4, An alien tongue; Chapter 5,
Women's words. IN Grammar and Gender (New Haven: Yale
University Press), 55-89.
Coates, Jennifer. 1986. Chapter 3. The historical background (II) -
Anthropologists and dialectologists. IN Women, Men and Language
(London and New York: Longman, Studies in Language and
Lakoff, Robin. 1973. Language and woman's place. Language in
Society 2, 45-79. Reprinted as Part One of Language and Woman's
Place (New York: Harper & Row, 1975).
Valian, Virginia. 1977. Linguistics and feminism. IN Vetterling-
Braggin, Mary, Frederick Elliston, and Jane English, eds., Feminism
and Philosophy (Totowa, N.J.: Littlefield, Adams, and Co.), 154-66.
Rpt. IN Vetterling-Braggin, Mary, ed., Sexist Langauge: A Modern
Philosophical Analysis (Totowa, N.J.: Littlefield, Adams and Co.,
Stanback, Marsha Houston. 1985. Language and black woman's
place: Evidence from the black middle class. IN Treichler, Paula A.,
Cheris Kramarae, and Beth Stafford, eds., For Alma Mater: Theory
and Practice in Feminist Scholarship (Urbana and Chicago: Univ. of
Illinois Press), 177-93.
Week 3 Cross-sex communicative interaction: Dominance
Lakoff proposed that women are in a linguistic "double-bind". Using
data from North Carolina courtrooms, O'Barr and Atkins propose that
much of what Lakoff has called "women's language" is really
"powerless" language, both in the sense of being used by those whose
power is limited and in being relatively ineffective. Much work on
conversational analysis also seems to find women at a disadvantage in
cross-sex exchanges though for somewhat different reasons than
Lakoff suggests. Fishman's research on allocation of responsibility for
keeping conversation afloat, and West and Zimmerman's work on
interruptions have been widely discussed as examples of men's
exerting conversational dominance over women. Mann's account of
"bar talk" and Gardner's analysis of "street remarks" point to
communication that is somewhat problematic for women in sem-
public contexts where gender and cross-sex relationships are
O'Barr, William M. and Bowman K. Atkins. 1980. "Women's
language" or "powerless language"? W&L, 93-110.
Fishman, Pamela. 1983. Interaction: The work women do. L,G&S,
West, Candace and Don H. Zimmerman. 1983. Small insults: A
study of interruptions in cross-sex conversations between unacquainted
persons. L,G&S, 103-118.
Gardner, Carol Brooks. 1980. Passing by: Street remarks, address
rights, and the urban female. Sociological Inquiry 50, 328-356.
Mann, Brenda J. 1974. Bar talk. IN Spradley, James P. and David W.
McCurdy, Conformity and conflict: Readings in cultural anthropology
[2nd ed.]. (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co.), 101-111.
Week 4 Cross-sex communicative interaction: Difference
It has also been argued that there are gender-differentiated models of
how communication ought to proceed basically acquired in single-sex
peer interaction among children. On this view, at least some
communicative difficulties between the sexes arise from
misunderstanding. Reviewing research on single-sex groups such as
Goodwin's for children and Kalcik's study of narrative style in a
women's group, Maltz and Borker argue that (American) females and
males come from different communicative "cultures" and that each
misinterprets the other. Though Maltz and Borker do not cite it,
Edlesky's work showing that women say more when there is a "shared
floor" is also suggestive of distinctive communicative cultures along
the lines they suggest. Tannen points to ethnic styles of
communication as another source of misunderstanding important in
cross-sex intimate communication (and also, though she does not
discuss it, a potential problem for same-sex couples).
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness. 1980. Directive-response speech
sequences in girls' and boys' task activities. W&L, 157-173.
Kalcik, Susan. 1975. "...like Ann's gynecologist or the time I was
almost raped": Personal narratives in women's rap groups. IN Farrar,
Claire, ed., Women and Folklore, 3-11.
Edelsky, Carole. 1981. "Who's got the floor?" Language in Society
Maltz, Daniel N. and Ruth A. Borker. 1982. A cultural approach to
male/female miscommunication. IN John J. Gumperz, ed., Language
and Social Identity (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, Studies in
Interactional Sociolingusitics 2), 196-216.
Tannen, Deborah. 1982. Ethnic style in male-female conversation.
IN Gumperz, ed. (see above), 217-231.
FIRST PROJECT DUE FEBRUARY 17
Week 5 Communicative Styles: Aims and strategies
Communicative style depends not only on group identity but is also a
matter of aims and strategies for achieving them, given assessment of
one's social resources. Drawing on philosopher Grice's theories of
conversation, linguist Michell proposes that women's "telling it slant"
(conveying partial or distorted truths), while ultimately an imperfect
strategy, is nonetheless a reasonable and effective response to their
communicative problems in male-dominated society. Brown draws on
a general Gricean-style theory of politeness as involving strategies to
maximize one another's "negative face" (sense of one's autonomy and
individuality being respected) and "positive face" (sense of being
included in a connected social group). She examines women's
politeness to one another and to men in a particular social group where
women's position is quite explicitly and strikingly subordinate to that
of men. It is illuminating to read Costello's paper on the poet
Marianne Moore and her "subversive" use of "feminine" modes of
language use for particular communicative aims with Michell's and
Brown's strategic focus in mind. From a somewhat different
perspective, Treichler and Kramarae look at language use in academic
settings and discuss strategies women students have used to restructure
problematic classroom interactions.
Michell, Gillian, 1984. Women and lying: A pragmatic and semantic
analysis of "telling it slant". Women's Studies Int. Forum 7.5, 375-83.
Brown, Penelope. 1980. How and why are women more polite: Some
evidence from a Mayan community. W&L, 111-136.
Costello, Bonnie. 1980. The "feminine" language of Mariannne
Moore. W&L, 222-238.
Treichler, Paula A. and Cheris Kramarae. 1983. Women's talk in the
ivory tower. Communication Quarterly 31, 118-132.
Week 6 At the "edge" of language
Prosodic features of speech --(relative) tempo, rhythm, pitch--are to
some extent controlled by linguistic rules and to some extent not. My
paper looks at some of the research on women's and men's uses of
these features and problems raised for interpretation of their
significance. Movements and gestures are also important
accompaniments ot speech in communication; to some extent, they are
conventionalized and structured although not grammaticized in quite
the same ways that language is (except in languages such as ASL used
by hearing-impaired people in this country). Henley explores a number
of dimensions of the sexual politics of bodily movement. Goffman
analyses postures and demeanors as components of stylized gender
McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 1983. Intonation in a man's world. L,G&S,
Henley, Nancy. 1977. Body Politics (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall), chapters 1-2, 6-7.
Goffman, Erving. 1979. Gender display. IN Goffman, Gender
FIRST MIDTERM, MARCH 3
Week 7 Social variation and language change
Linguists have been very interested in systematic variation in language
use that is keyed to social identity; such variation is of special interest
because of its ties to ongoing language change in a community. Some
linguists have proposed that women are generally in the vanguard of
change, others that women are conservative in their usage; as might be
expected, matters are far more complex. Coates reviews
sociolinguistic research on gender-linked variation (with a focus on
work in urban Britain), looking both at the ties to social stratification
and at work on social networks. Eckert's work in a Detroit high school
is of interest as a case where gender identity is far less significant than
self-identified adolescent social group membership. Nichols' research
deals with a rural setting where mainstream English is in competition
with Gullah, an English-based creole; she explains sex-linked variation
chiefly in terms of women's and men's occupational opportunities.
Hill's research looks at Spanish influences on a Mexican Indian
language, tying women's language use to their lives and values in the
community. Rather than variation within a single language, Gal looks
at competition between two different languages (German and
Hungarian) in a situation where very different langauge-associated
options exist for women and men.
Coates, Jennifer. 1986. Chapter 4, Quantitative studies, and Chapter 5,
Social networks. IN Women, Men and Language. 57-95.
Eckert, Penelope. 1988. Adolescent social structure and the spread of
linguistic change. Language in Society 17, 183-207.
Nichols, Patricia C. 1983. Linguistic options and choices for black
women in the rural south. L,G&S, 54-68.
Hill, Jane H. 1987. Women's speech in modern Mexicano. In Philips,
et al., eds., 121-60.
Gal, Susan. 1978. Peasant men can't get wives: Language change and
sex roles in a bilingual community. Language in Society 7, 1-16.
TERM PROJECT PROPOSALS DUE, MARCH 10
Week 8 Cross-cultural perspectives on genderized language use
Recent research has made clear the diversity in the ways that speech
and gender interact. We will discuss a variety of ethnographic
situations and consider whether it is possible to say anything
systematic about how general features of social organization and of the
"arrangements between the sexes" link to genderized language use.
Are we able yet to posit interesting universals? To connect kinds of
interactions between language and gender with broad differences in
types of societies?
Ochs, Elinor. 1987. The impact of stratification and socialization on
men's and women's speech in Western Samoa. IN Philips, Steele, and
Schiefflin, Bambi B. 1987. Do different worlds mean different
words?: An example from Papua New Guinea. In Philips, Steele, and
Kuipers, Joel Corneal. 1986. Talking about troubles: Gender
differences in Weyewa speech use. American Ethnologist 13 (3), 448-
Lederman, Rena. 1980. Who speaks here?: Formality and the politics
of gender in Mendi. Journal of the Polynesian Society 89 (4), 479-98.
Week 9 Everyday genders and gender relations
Approaching language use analytically uncovers its complexities in
much more familiar settings. We will look at research that shows
some of the richness and complexity of many everyday kinds of
language use--children's games, jokes, graffiti--in connection to
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness. 1985. The serious side of jump rope:
Conversational practices and social organization in the frame of play.
IN Journal of American Folklore 98: 315-330
Bruner, Edward M. and Jane Paige Kelso. 1980. Gender differences
in graffiti: A semiotic perspective. IN Women's Studies Interantional
Quarterly 3, 239-252.
Bergmann, Merrie. 1986. How many feminists does it take to make a
joke?: Sexist humor and what's wrong with it.
SECOND PROJECT DUE, MARCH 31
Week 10 Genderized meaning: Grammatical gender and pronouns
Grammatical gender systems of the sort found in many familiar
European languages (e.g., French, Spanish, Italian, German, Russian)
is sometimes said by linguistis to be totally unconnected to
sociocultural gender, but matters are considerably more complex than
this. English essentially lost its grammatical gender system hundreds
of years ago; nonetheless, anaphoric pronouns in English (pronouns
that are understood via their connection to some other linguistic
expression--e.g., "Every woman thinks that she is intelligent") do vary
in ways that depend not just on the sex of potential referents. We will
explore briefly what grammatical gender systems convey. We will
then consider both the subtleties of actual pronominal usage and
interpretation in English and the reforms proposed and resistance to
Silverstein, Michael. 1985. Language and the culture of gender: At
the intersection of sturcture, usage, and ideology. IN Elizabeth Mertz
and Richard H. Parmentier, eds., Semiotic mediation: Sociocultural
and psychological perspectives (Orlando: Academic Press), 219-59.
Martyna, Wendy. 1983. Beyond the he/man approach: The case for
nonsexist language. IN Thorne, Henley, and Kramare, eds., L,G&S,
Wolfe, Susan J. 1989. The reconstuction of word meanings: A review
of the scholarship. IN Frank, Francine Wattman and Paula A.
Treichler, eds., Language, Gender, and Professional Writing:
Theoretical Approaches and Guidelines for Nonsexist Usage (New
York: MLA), 80-93.
Frank, Francine Wattman and Paula A. Treichler. 1989. Language,
Gender and Professional Writing. [Introduction, up to but not
including "The social and professional context of scholarly writing"].
IN Frank and Treichler, eds., 1-24.
Frank, Francine Wattman and Paula A. Treichler. 1989. Common
problems of sexist usage: "Generic" He. IN Frank and Treichler, eds.,
Week 11 Addressing and labelling
Address forms designate the recipient of an utterance ("you guys",
"Miss", "honey", "smartass", "ladies") and at the same time convey
messages about assessment by speakers of the social situation and of
their relationsip to their addressees. Many of the same forms are also
used to label and refer to third parties though some forms are only
referential/labelling and others only address. We will look at some of
the work on how address and labelling not only reflect but help create
McConnell-Ginet, Sally, 1978. Address forms in sexual politics. IN
Butturff, D. and E.L. Epstein, eds., Women's Language and Style
(Akron, OH: L&S Books, 1978), 23-35.
Fiske, Shirley Jeanette. 1978. Rules of address: Navajo women in Los
Angeles. Journal of Anthropological Research 34 (1): 72-91.
Kalcik, Susan J. 1985. Women's handles and the performance of
identity in the CB community. IN Rosan A. Jordan and Susan J.
Kalcik, eds., Women's Folklore, Women's Culture (Philadelphia: Univ.
of Pennsylvania Press), 99-108.
Stirling, Lesley. 1987. Language and gender in Australian
newspapers. IN Pauwels, Anne, ed., Language, gender and society in
Australia and New Zealand (Melbourne: River Seine Publications),
Jabbra, Nancy Walstom. 1980. Sex roles and language in Lebanon.
Ethnology: An International Journal of Cultural and Social
Anthropology 19 (4), 459-74.
SECOND MIDTERM, APRIL 14
Week 12 Authority, discourse, and meaning
Implicit in much of our earlier discussion has been the view that being
able to say what one means can be problematic. In this section we
consider questions about the development of meaning in discourse and
about competition among alternative meanings.
McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 1989. The sexual (re)production of
meaning: A discourse-based theory. IN Frank and Treichler, eds., 35-
Treichler, Paula J. 1989. From discourse to dictionary: How sexist
meanings are authorized. IN Frank and Treichler, eds., 51-79.
Scheman, Naomi. 1980. Anger and the politics of naming. IN
McConnell-Ginet, Borker, and Furman, eds., 174-187.
Penelope, Julia. 1988. Interpretive strategies and sex-marked
comparative constructions. IN Alexandra D. Todd and Sue Fisher,
eds., Gender and discourse: The power of talk (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press), 255-275.
Week 13 Language, theory, and ideology
We turn finally to look at the very deep and difficult question of how
ways of talking and ways of thinking and acting are mutually
influential. Examples are drawn from a number of different domains:
sociobiology, feminist philosophy of science, feminist discussions of
Brown, JoAnne. 1986. Professional language: Words that succeed.
Radical History Review 34, 33-51.
Hoagland, Sarah Lucia. 1980. Androcentric rhetoric in sociobiology.
Women's Studies International Quarterly 3, 285-293.
Cohn, Carol. 1987. Sex and death in the rational work of defense
intellectuals. SIGNS: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 12,
Wolfe, Susan J. 1988. The rhetoric of heterosexism. IN Todd and
Fisher, eds., 199-224.
Week 14 New voices, new readings
We close by briefly looking at some of the innovative uses of language
in recent writings by women and at women's re-reading of familiar
Rich, Adrienne. 1971. When we dead awaken: Writing as re-vision.
IN Rich, On Lies, Secrets, and Silence: Selected Prose 1966-1978
(New York: W.W. Norton & Co.), 33-50.
________. 1977. Power and danger: Works of a common woman. IN
IN Rich, On Lies, Secrets, and Silence, 247-258.
Daly, Mary. 1978. Gen/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical
Feminism, (Boston: Beacon Press), preface and introduction.
LANGUAGE, GENDER, AND POWER
Linguistics/ Women's Studies 244
Morrill 222 -- 255-6469
How do gender and language interact? How are linguistic
resources used in constructing ourselves and others as
"women" or as "men", as "gay" or "straight", as "people of
color" or "white"? As "jocks" or "burnouts"? As "airheads"?
As "nerds"? As "feminists" or "sexists"? How do such
identities intertwine and change as we enter new
communities and engage in new activities? How does their
content vary in particular local groups? How do we use
gender identities or beliefs about them to structure our
relations across gender boundaries? Within the same gender
class? How is gender used in wielding power? Are forms of
power genderized? And how is gender used in restructuring
other power relations? What are links between racism and
gender? Heterosexism? Social mobility? Class privilege?
When and how are gender relations like race or class
relations? In what ways and under what conditions are they
What role is language playing in the various social activites
from which gender emerges? How do gender dynamics
affect changes in a language's sound system? What are
linguistic resources for resisting conventional gender
arrangements? How do particular linguistic forms function
in structuring and restructuring our communities? How does
language use tend to obscure our noticing privilege? How
and why are meanings contested and changed? How are
social conflict and change linked to language use?
Readings, discussion, and assignments will focus on such
issues. Class participants will spend some time looking at
details of language use that usually go unnoticed in their
own communities and exploring how those details connect to
other features of social practice.
Jennifer Coates and Deborah Cameron, eds. 1989. London
and New York: Longman.
David Graddol and Joan Swann. 1989. Oxford: Basil
Deborah Tannen. 1990. You Just Don't Understand: Women
and Men in Conversation. New York: William Morrow
(Ballantine Books paperback, 1991)
Additional readings will be available as a coursepack later in
WEEKS 1 AND 2
During the first two weeks, we're going to focus on a view of
gender as "separateness" and cultural difference popularized
in Deborah Tannen's recent best-seller. We will use
Tannen's discussion to start ourselves thinking about how
gender difference gets constructed and used in gender
relations, how it might be differently constructed and used
in different communities and in different situations, the
range of variation in particular communities within each
gender and the similarities across gender, the role of
differences (real and perceived) in constructing male
domination and female power and relations within and
across gender divisions.
Tannen writes in general terms and offers anecdotes without
much information on how particular episodes fit into larger
patterns of social life in which the cast of characters is
engaged. Her focus is on isolated couples. Although she tells
us little of their backgrounds, she seems to imply that they
are white heterosexual middle-class professionals, probably
in their thirties or forties. As you read, ask yourself such
questions as these:
Do I think this incident might have occurred in my family?
In my home neighborhood? In my living unit here in
Ithaca? In some other community of practice to which I
belong? Why? Why not? What rings true about Tannen's
explanation of the "miscommunication"? What does not?
What would you like to know about the context of the
incident discussed? About the backgrounds of the people?
About their participation in larger communities? About
their histories and possible futures?
Wednesday, 22 January
READ Tannen, Preface, Chapters 1 and 2
Friday, 24 January
READ Tannen, Chapters 3 and 4
Monday, 27 January
READ Tannen, Chapters 5 and 6
Wednesday, 29 January
READ Tannen, Chapters 7 and 8
Friday, 31 January
READ Tannen, Chapters 9 and 10
READING ASSIGNMENTS FOR WEEKS 5 AND 6
Monday, 17 February
READ Graddol and Swann, Accents of femininity: Gender
differences in language use, ch. 3 of Gender Voices, pp 40-
Wednesday, 19 February
READ Deborah Cameron, Introduction, ch. 1 of Women in
Their Speech Communities, ed. Coates and Cameron, pp 1-
Deborah Cameron and Jennifer Coates, Some problems in
the sociolinguistic explanation of sex differences, ch. 2, pp
Friday, 21 February
READ Patricia C. Nichols (1983), Linguistic options anad
choices for black women in the rural south, in Language,
Gender, and Society, ed. B. Thorne, C. Kramerae, and N.
Henley, pp 54-68. (xerox to be distributed)
Monday, 24 February
READ Edina Eisikovits (1987), Sex differences in the inter-
group and intra-group interaction among adolescents. In
Women and Language in Australian and New Zealand
Society, ed. Anne Pauwels, pp 45-58. (xerox to be
Wednesday, 26 February
READ Margaret Deuchar, A pragmatic account of women's
standard speech, ch. 3 in Coates and Cameron, pp 27-32.
Viv Edwards, The speech of British Black women in Dudley,
West Midlands, ch. 4 in Coates and Cameron, pp 33-50.
Friday, 26 February
READ Beth Thomas, Differences of sex and sects: Linguistic
variation and social networks in a Welsh mining village, ch. 5
in Coates and Cameron, pp 51-60.
Back to the Language and Gender page.