Does Men’s Support Come on Time?: An Analysis of Minimal Responses in Men's Talk

Authors

  • Leila Mohajer Unit for Research on Women and Gender (KANITA), School of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia
  • Jariah Mohd. Jan Department of English Language, Faculty of Languages and Linguistics, Universiti Malaya

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2022-2801-02

Abstract

Minimal responses are the linguistic devices that are mainly used by women. They are typically regarded as cooperative enhancers. Unlike women, men use delayed minimal responses that show a lack of support, attention, and interest. Nevertheless, this paper addresses the issue of men’s language and the use of minimal responses as a strategy to build conversations cooperatively. The data of this study comprise 180 minutes of audio-recorded transcribed conversations of four groups of men who were either classmates, close friends, or both. The frequency count of minimal responses is tabulated quantitatively, and the conversation analysis approach is applied to reflect qualitative findings. The findings indicate that the stereotypical linguistic features which are assigned to men need to be reconsidered and challenged in various settings. In this study, men are as highly capable as women in selectively showing their support and interest, particularly to the issues that matter to them whenever required. This paper also references the social distance and the topic of conversation as the significant effects of minimal responses. Keywords: conversation topic; cooperation; men’s talk; minimal responses; social distance

Author Biographies

Leila Mohajer, Unit for Research on Women and Gender (KANITA), School of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia

Leila Mohajer is a Senior Lecturer at the Unit for Research on Women and Gender, KANITA, School of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia. She has obtained her PhD in Sociolinguistics at the Universiti Malaya. She worked as a lecturer at the University of Applied Science and Technology in 2006 and cooperated with different centres and institutes as an English & IELTS Instructor. She has been the administrative director of an ongoing international leadership project since 2016. She has led some projects on various topics, such as doctor-patient communication, gender and disasters, etc. Her publications cover various topics, such as women and language, men’s talk, power and solidarity, language and culture and gender-related issues.

Jariah Mohd. Jan, Department of English Language, Faculty of Languages and Linguistics, Universiti Malaya

Jariah Mohd Jan is a Professor at the Faculty of Languages and Linguistics, Universiti Malaya. She has held several leadership roles at the university as the Deputy Dean of the Institute of Graduate Studies, Deputy Executive Director of the Asia-Europe Institute, Deputy Dean of Research and Development, Deputy Dean of Undergraduate Studies and Dean of the Faculty of Languages and Linguistics. She specialises in sociolinguistics, in particular, gender and power in relation to language. Her recent work focuses on pragmatics, leadership discourse and the relevance of gender and ethnicity in the workplace, and academic concerns and needs of children in foster care. She is Programme Leader of the Impact-Oriented Interdisciplinary Research Grant (IIRG) Programme on documenting the language and culture of the Kerinchi community in Kuala Lumpur. She has also published numerous articles in international journals on topics ranging from gendered discourse, through socio-pragmatic aspects of interaction, to discourse and linguistic features of the Mah Meri, Javanese and Kerinchi communities in Malaysia. Her recent books include Pragmatics Research in the Malaysian Context (with Siti Nurbaya Mohd Nor, Mohd Ridwan Abdul Wahid, Veronica Lowe), Voices in Texts and Contexts (with Yamaguchi, T. and Sheena Kaur), and Discourse Research in the Malaysian Context (with Zalina Mohd Kasim and Sharon Sharmini Danarajan).

References

Boxer, D. (1993). Social distance and speech behavior: The case of indirect complaints. Journal of Pragmatics, 19(2), 103-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90084-3

Coates, J. (2014). Gossip revisited: Language in all-female groups. In J. Coates, & D. Cameron (Eds.), Women in their speech communities (pp. 94-121). Routledge.

Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2012). Analysing English as a lingua franca: A corpus-driven investigation. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Croll, P. (1985). Teacher interaction with individual male and female pupils in junior‐age classrooms. Educational Research, 27(3), 220-223. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188850270309

Engström, A. (2018). I’m sure women use more hedges, I think: A study comparing male and female usage of hedges [Independent thesis basic level, University of Gavle]. Digitala Vetenskapliga Arkivet. URN: urn:nbn:se:hig:diva-26186

Eshraghi, A., & Shahrokhi, M. (2016). The realization of complaint strategies among Iranian female EFL learners and female native English speakers: A politeness perspective. International Journal of English Linguistics, 6(2), 9-20. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v6n2p9

Fishman, P. (1983). Interaction: The work women do. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae, & N. Henley (Eds.), Language, gender, and society (pp. 89-101). Newbury House.

French, J., & French, P. (1984). Gender imbalances in the primary classroom: An interactional account. Educational Research, 26(2), 127-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188840260209

Hei, K. C., Ling, W. N., & David, M. K. (2015). The perceived value of silence and spoken words in Malaysian interactions. SEARCH: The Journal of the South East Asia Research Centre for Communications and Humanities, 7(1), 53-70. https://doi.org/10.7603/s40931-015-0003-1

Holmes, J. (1997). Women, language and identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 1(2), 195-223. https://org/10.1111/1467-9481.00012

Holmes, J. (2008). Gendered discourse at work. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(3), 478-495. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00063.x

Holmes, J. (2013). Women, men and politeness (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Jule, A. (2018). Gender and language. In H. Callan (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of anthropology, 12 Volume Set, (pp. 1-9). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118924396.wbiea2158

Kanwal, R., Khan, F. R., & Baloch, S. M. (2017). Comparative study of linguistic features in gender communication in Pakistani television talk show. International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 6(2), 54-62. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.23.2017.62.54.62

Keong, Y. C., Gill, S. K., & Noorezam, M. (2012). Gender differences and culture in English short message service language among Malay university students. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature®, 18(2), 67-74.

Kiesling, S. (2007). Men, masculinities, and language. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(6), 653-673. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00035.x

Krkovic, K., Greiff, S., Kupiainen, S., Vainikainen, M. P., & Hautamäki, J. (2014). Teacher evaluation of student ability: What roles do teacher gender, student gender, and their interaction play?. Educational Research, 56(2), 244-257. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2014.898909

Lacia, K., Ginco, J. N., & Maxilom, R. M. R. (2019). Interactional strategies and anaphoric repairs of BS information and communications (BSIT) technology students. Indonesian Journal of EFL and Linguistics, 4(1), 89-107. https://doi.org/10.21462/ijefl.v4i1.103

Lakoff, R. T. (1975). Language and woman's place. Harper and Row.

Lin, G. H. C., & Jarvie, D. S. (2016). Colloquial modernizations in Taiwanese gendered ‘spouse talk’. Asian Journal of Women's Studies, 22(2), 131-146. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/12259276.2016.1168159

Maltz, D. N., & Borker, R. A. (2011). Cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In J. Coates, & P. Pichler (Eds.), Language and gender: A reader (pp. 487-502). Wiley Blackwell.

Mishra, P. (2020). Effective communication skills: Investigating the politeness strategies used by women as workplace discourse. Journal of Critical Reviews, 7(13), 1183-1187.

Mohajer, L., & Endut, N. (2020). The role of gender and status in communication between doctors and patients in Malaysian contexts. Kajian Malaysia: Journal of Malaysian Studies, 38(supp.1), 89–108. https://doi.org/10.21315/km2020.38.s1.6

Mohajer, L., & Jan, J. M. (2018). Building solidarity through interruption in face-to-face interaction amongst Iranian men. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies, 18(2), 46-58. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2018-1802-04

Norrick, N. R. (2012). Listening practices in English conversation: The responses responses elicit. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(5), 566-576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.08.007

Pasfield-Neofitou, S. E. (2007). The gender differential use of minimal responses in daytime TV interviews: A preliminary investigation. Monash University Linguistics Papers, 5(2), 43-52. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.989037521132760

Pilkington, J. (1998). ‘Don’t try and make out that I’m nice’ The different strategies women and men use when gossiping. In J. Coates (Ed.), Language and gender: A reader (pp. 254-269). Blackwell.

Reid, J. (1995). A study of gender differences in minimal responses. Journal of Pragmatics, 24(5), 489-512. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00066-N

Schegloff, E. A. (1972). Sequencing in conversational openings. In J. J. Gumperz, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 346-380). Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Shahrokhi, M., & Jan, J. M. (2012). The realization of apology strategies among Persian males. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 692-700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.183

Sulastri, S., (2019). Characterizing men and women language in the best of me movie [Doctoral Dissertation, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta]. http://eprints.ums.ac.id/id/eprint/73804

Tannen, D. (2013). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation. Harper Collins.

Ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. Sage.

White, J. (2015). Topic-and mode-sensitive interaction strategies: functions of ellipsis in oral communication. Research in Language, 13(3), 334-350. https://doi.org/10.1515/rela-2015-0027

Wolfson, N. (1986). The bulge: A theory of speech behavior and social distance. Penn Working Papers in Educational Linguistics (WEPL). 2(1), 55–83. https://repository.upenn.edu/wpel/vol2/iss1/3

Zimmerman, D. H., & West, C. (1975). Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. In B. Thorne, & N. Henley (Eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance (pp. 105-129). Newbury House.

Downloads

Published

2022-03-28

Issue

Vol. 28 No. 1 (2022): Mac 2022

Section

Articles

License

If the article is accepted for publication, copyright of this article will be vested to UKM Press, National University of Malaysia (UKM).


All articles published in this journal are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license, unless otherwise stated.