Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:56:29.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Functions of you know in women's and men's speech

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Janet Holmes
Janet Holmes
Affiliation:
Linguistics Section, Victoria University of Wellington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

You know, like the tag question and the parenthetical I think, has been regarded as a linguistic hedging device, and consequently as a “women's language” form. This paper describes a range of forms and functions expressed by you know, as well as its use by women and men in a corpus of spontaneous speech. While there is no difference in this corpus in the total number of occurrences of you know produced by women and men, there are interesting contrasts in the most frequent functions expressed by you know in female and male usage. Finally, the possibility that negative stereotypes may distort perceptions of women's usage is briefly discussed. (Sociolinguistics, discourse analysis, contextual styles, women's and men's speech)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 1986 , pp. 1 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Baumann, M. (1979). Two features of “women's speech?” In Dubois, B. L. & Crouch, I. (eds.), The sociology of the languages of American women. San Antonio: Trinity University Press. 33–40.Google Scholar
Brown, G. (1977). Listening to spoken English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Brown, G. (1982). The spoken language. In Carter, R. (ed.), Linguistics and the teacher. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 75–87.Google Scholar
Brown, P. (1980). How and why are women more polite: Some evidence from a Mayan community. In McConnell-Ginet, S., Borker, R., & Furman, N. (eds.), Women and language in literature and society. New York: Praeger. 111–36.Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Goody, E. N. (ed.), Questions and politeness. Cambridge University Press. 56–289.Google Scholar
Crosby, F., & Nyquist, L. (1977). The female register: An empirical study of Lakoff's hypotheses. Language in Society 6:313–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D., & Davy, D. (1975). Advanced conversational English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Dines, E. R. (1980). Variation in discourse – “and stuff like that.” Language in Society 9:13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubois, B. L., & Crouch, I. (1975). The question of tag questions in women's speech: they don't really use more of them do they? ↓ Language in Society 4:289–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eakins, B. W., & Eakins, C. (1979). Verbal turn-taking and exchanges in faculty dialogue. In Dubois, B. L. & Crouch, I. (eds.), The sociology of the languages of American women. San Antonio: Trinity University Press. 53–62.Google Scholar
Edelsky, C. (1981). Who's got the floor? Language in Society 10:383–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmondson, W. (1981). Spoken discourse: A model for analysis. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Fishman, P. M. (1978). Interaction: The work women do. Social Problems 25:397–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishman, P. M. (1980). Conversational insecurity. In Giles, H., Robinson, W. P., & Smith, P. M. (eds.), Language: Social psychological perspectives. Oxford and New York: Pergamon. 127–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L. (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts. New York: Academic. 41–58.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1980). Modes of meaning and modes of expression: Types of grammatical structure and their determination by different semantic functions. In Allerton, D. J. (ed.), Function and context in linguistic analysis. Cambridge University Press. 57–79.Google Scholar
Hartman, M. (1979). A descriptive study of the language of men and women born in Maine around 1900 as it reflects the Lakoff hypotheses in “Language and women's (sic) place”. In Dubois, B. L. & Crouch, I. (eds.), The sociology of the languages of American women. San Antonio. Trinity University Press. 81–90.Google Scholar
Hirschman, L. (1973). Female-male differences in conversational interaction. Paper presented at Linguistic Society of America conference. Abstracts in Thorne, B. & Henley, N. (eds.), Language and sex. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House 232, 249, 254, 259, 264.Google Scholar
Hirschman, L. (1974). Analysis of supportive and assertive behaviour in conversations. Paper presented at Linguistic Society of America conference. Abstracts in Thorne, B. & Henley, N. (eds.), Language and sex. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House, 231, 248, 259, 288.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1970). The language of spoken monologue. M. Phil, thesis, University of Leeds.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1982). Expressing doubt and certainty in English. RELC Journal 13(2):9–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J. (1983a). The functions of tag questions. English Language Research Journal 3:40–65.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1983b). Speaking English with the appropriate degree of conviction. In Brumfit, C. (ed.), Learning and teaching languages for communication: Applied linguistic perspectives. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research. 100–13.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1984a). Hedging your bets and sitting on the fence: Some evidence for hedges as support structures. Te Reo 27:47–62.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1984b). “Women's language”: A functional approach. General Linguistics 24(3):149–78.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1985). Sex differences and miscommunication: Some data from New Zealand. In Pride, J. B. (ed.), Cross-cultural encounters: Communication and miscommunication. Melbourne: River Seine. 24–43.Google Scholar
James, A. R. (1983). Compromisers in English: A cross-disciplinary approach to their interpersonal significance. Journal of Pragmatics 7(1):191–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, D. (1975). Male and female language and the expression of uncertainty. Unpublished term paper, Victoria University.Google Scholar
Kramer, C., Thorne, B., & Henley, N. (1978). Perspectives on language and communication. Signs 3(3):638–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman's place. Language in Society 2:45–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, R.(1974). What you can do with words: Politeness, pragmatics, and performatives. Berkeley Studies in Syntajc and Semantics 16:1–55.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman's place. New York: Harper Colophon.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1977). Women's language. Language and Style 10:222–46.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1979). Stylistic strategies within a grammar of style. Annals: New York Academy of Sciences 327. 53–78.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1980). Psychoanalytic discourse and ordinary conversation. In Shuy, R. W. & Schnukal, A. (eds.), Language use and the uses of language. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 269–87.Google Scholar
Lavandera, B. A. (1978). Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop? Language in Society 7:171–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
McConnell-Ginet, S. (1980). Linguistics and the feminist challenge. In McConnell-Ginet, S., Borker, R., & Furman, N. (eds.), Women and language in literature and society. New York: Praeger. 1–25.Google Scholar
O'Barr, W. M., & Atkins, B. K. (1980). “Women's language” or “powerless language”? In McConnell-Ginet, S., Borker, R., & Furman, N. (eds.), Women and language in literature and society. New York: Praeger. 93–110.Google Scholar
Östman, J.-O. (1981). “You know”: A discourse-functional approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, D. L., & Nelson, M. W. (1983). Multiple determinants of a stigmatised speech style: Women's language, powerless language, or everyone's language? Language and Speech 26(3):273–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spender, D. (1979). Language and sex differences. Osnabrücker Beiträge Zur Sprach Theorie 9:38–59.Google Scholar
Spender, D. (1980). Man made language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Swacker, M. (1975). The sex of the speaker as a sociolinguistic variable. In Thorne, B. & Henley, N. (eds.), Language and sex. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. 76–83.Google Scholar
Swacker, M. (1979). Women's verbal behaviour at learned and professional conferences. In Dubois, B. L. & Crouch, I. (eds.), The sociology of the languages of American women. San Antonio: Trinity University Press. 155–60.Google Scholar
Wong-Fillmore, L. (1976). The second time around: Cognitive and social strategies in second language acquisition. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, D. H., & West, C. (1975). Sex roles, interruptions, and silences in conversations. In Thome, B. & Henley, N. (eds.), Language and sex. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. 76–83.Google Scholar