How does “to what gender and status one talks” govern the speaker’s strategy in keeping on their conversation?

Year 2020, , 166 - 184, 29.03.2020

Giyoto Giyoto Novianni Anggraini Elen Inderasari Luthfie Arguby Purnomo

https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.712691

Abstract

“To what gender and status one talks” governs more the speaker, in deciding their culturally and socially accepted strategy in conversation, than “who talks”; as the airport runway dictates the pilot’s landing strategy. This paper, employing conversational analysis, tries to explore how the gender and social status of the audience dictate the speaker’s speech acts and moves in Muslim formal conversation in three functional topical units composed of 107 acts of directive, assertive, commisive, expressive, rogative, and 103 moves of initiations, responses, and follow ups. The finding shows that, to all female students, a male initiates and controls the conversation for materializing his social power by having more directive acts and initiation moves. To the high female, Low male uses assertive and response. While the female, regardless the social status and gender of the audience, uses assertive acts and response moves to support the interaction and social togetherness. The findings imply that the object to whom one talks is more crucial in describing the conversation strategy.

Keywords

to what gender and status; control; conversation; strategy; materialize; power

References

• Austin, J.L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Baker, P. 2013. Introduction: Virtual Special Issue of Gender and Language on Corpus Approaches. Gender and Language, Vol.1 No.1. Retrieved April 13, 2015 from http://www.equinoxpub.com/journals/index.php/GL/article/view/17185/13506 Baker, P. 2010. Will Ms ever be as frequent as Mr? A Corpus-based Comparison of Gendered Terms across Four Diachronic Corpora of British English. In Gender and Language. London: Equinox Publishing. Baker, P. 2008. Sexed Texts: Language, Gender and Sexuality. London: Equinox. Barbieri, F. 2008. Patterns of Age-based Linguistic Variation in American English. Journal of Sociolinguistics, Vol.12. No.1, 58-88. Baslow, S.A. and Rubenfeld, K. 2003. “trouble talks”: Effect of Gender and Gender-Typing, Sex Roles, Vol. 48, Nos. 2/4. Carli, L. L. 1990. Gender, Language, and Influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 39, No. 3,941-931. The American Psychological Association, Inc. Coates, J. 2004. Women, Men, and Language. London:Longman. Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Selting, M. 2001. Introducing Interactional Linguistics. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in Interactional Linguistics (pp 1-22). Amsterdam: John Benjamin Drew, P and Curl, T. 2008. ‘Conversational Analysis: Overview and New Direction’. In Vijay K. B., Flowerdew, and Jones. (Eds.). Advances in Discourse Studies. London and New York: Routledge. Eakins, B. W. and Eakins, R.G. 1978. Sex Differences in Human Communication. Boston: Houghton Milfflin Erickson, B. Lind, E. A., Johnson, B. C., and O'Barr, W. 1978. Speech Style and Impression Formation in a Court Setting: The Effects of Powerful and Powerless Speech. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Vol 14. pp. 266-279 Gill, V.T., & Maynard, D. W. 2006. Explaining Illness: Patients’ Proposals and Physicians responses. In J. Heritage & D.W. Maynard (Eds.). Communication in Medical Care: Interaction between Primary Care Physicians and Patients (pp.115-150). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Giyoto. 2013. Sociolinguistics Measure For Paternal Gender Dominance Over maternal One Among Javanese Muslims. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR) Vol.2. No.3, 504-510. Gunnarsson, B.L. 1997. ‘Women and men in the academic discourse community’. In Kotthoff, H. and Wodak, R. (Eds.), Communicating gender in context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Holmes, J. and Meyerhoff, M. 2003. The Handbook of Language and Gender. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd Itakura, H. 2000. ‘Describing conversational dominance’. Journal of Pragmatics 33Kidwell, M. 2011. Epistemics and Embodiment in Interaction of Very Young Children. In T Stivers, J, Steensig & l. Mondada (Eds.). The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation (pp. 29-57). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lakoff, R. 1975. Language and Women’s Place. New York: Harper and Row Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman Group Limited. Myaskovisky, L., , Unikel, E., and and Dew, A. 2005. Effect of Gender Diversity on Performance and Interpersonal Behavior in Small Work Groups, Sex Roles, Vol. 52, 9/10. Nyamekye, E. and Yarney, S. 2015. Social and Cultural Perceptions on Women’s Education RW and Physical Embodiment on Their Ability to Wield Power over Men: The Yendi Experience in Northern Ghana. International Journal of Gender and Women’s Studies. Vol. 3, No. 2: 143-155 Perakyla, A, Antaki, C., Vehvilainen, S. & Leuder, I. 2008b. Conversation Analysis and Psychotherapy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, E.A. 2007b. Sequence Arganization in Interaction: A primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press. Searle, John R. (1969). Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language. London: Cambridge University Press. Sidnel, J. and Stives, T. 2013. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. West Sussex: Wiley Balckwell Publishing. Sinclair, J. McH & Coulthard, R.M. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: English Used by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smith, L., and and Dykann, A. 2010. Do Men Speak The Same Language Differently? Investigating The effect of Gender aon Language Use, University of Colorado Boulder. Stanworth, M. 1983. Gender and Schooling: A Study of Sexual Divisions in the Classroom. In Explorations in feminism. Michigan: Hutchinson Stevens, K, Lehmann, N. Cooper, T and Whitehouse, S. 2008.Battle of the Sexes: Differences in Directness of Communication between Men and Women in a Group Situation, Epistimi: Capital University’s Undergraduate Research Journal, Vol.III Swacker, M. 1979. ‘Women’s Verbal Behaviour at Learned and Professional Conferences’. In Dubois, Betty-Lou and Crouch, Isobel (Eds.). The Sociology of the Languages of American Women. San Antonio: Trinity University Tannen, D. 1990. You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: Ballantine. Tannen, D. 1994. Gender and discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tannen, D. 1995 Gender and Conversational Interaction, (Eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wardhaugh, R. 1993. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publisher Wheelan, S. A. and Verdi, A.F. 1992. Differences in Male and Female Patterns of Communication in Groups: A Methodological Artifact? Sex Roles,Vol. 27, 1/2. West and Zimmerman, 1998. ‘Women’s place in everyday talk: reflections on parent- child interaction’. in Coates, Jennifer (Eds.). Language and Gender: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell West and Zimmerman, 1983. ‘Small insults: A study of interruptions in cross-sex conversations between unacquainted persons’. In Barrie Thome, Cheris Kramarae and Nancy Henley, (Eds.), Language, gender and society, 102-117. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.