Transcript Analysis: Language and Gender

The transcript I have written takes inspiration from a conversation I heard from the Big Brother house. The conversation is between two people, a male and a female, as they discuss the latest eviction from the Big Brother house. This conversation seems to be spontaneous, with the conversation flowing easily between them.

The conversation begins with Victor, the male housemate asking Ulrika, the female housemate if she’s feeling better after the eviction. This could be both for and against the difference approach, as it is suggested by John Locke that “Men’s talk is claimed to be adversarial, goal directed and focused on factual information, differing from women’s co-operative and emotional use of language.” If we consider Locke’s approach to language in gender, it seems that Victor is only initiating conversation to receive some information on Ulrika’s thoughts from the eviction.

However, I feel that could be against the difference approach, purely because Victor says “How are you feeling” instead of speaking bluntly, and to the point. This use of more emotional based language could show he isn’t just interested in the information, but is interested in Ulrika too, hence contradicting Locke’s theory.

Victor does use a common trait of male language later on in the conversation though, as he uses some slang in the conversation, such as “good on ya”. Linguists such as Peter Trudgill and Jenny Cheshire have both suggested that men are more inclined to slang and swearing, as women are considered to speak more politely than men do.

But, Victor does show the very common sign of the dominance approach throughout the conversation. As Zimmerman and West suggested in 1975, males are a lot more likely to interrupt women, than women interrupting men. They suggested this was because men wanted to impose their dominant status through conversation. Victor does this by interrupting Ulrika when she says “I do feel better, I – “before cutting her off with “I for one am personally over the moon.” This use of an interruption to state what he thinks is a sign of Victor possibly wanting to impose dominance.

Victor then interrupts Ulrika at other points of the conversation, and each time, Ulrika backs down and lets Victor talk, another sign that Victor is imposing his dominance through conversation. However, there is one time where Ulrika tries to continue what she’s saying and interrupts Victor when he’s saying “I for one am personally over the moon” by saying “Are you?” however, Victor does not back down and continues to interrupt Ulrika.

Along with Victor showing signs of the dominance approach, Ulrika also shows common signs of the deficit approach throughout. As Robin Lakoff suggests, women use certain language techniques, such as tag questions, empty adjectives, and hedges, many of these according to Lakoff, to show their uncertainty and how they want to express this to seek clarification.

Ulrika mainly uses hedges such as “um” throughout the conversation, as well as false starts, such as “I-I-I I’m I can’t, I’m not gonna… I couldn’t possibly” both of these a sign of uncertainty according to Lakoff. However, these hedges and false starts could also just be a part of spontaneous speech, as Ulrika and Victor are just having a casual conversation where they are thinking as they are speaking. The um’s and false starts could be Ulrika’s way of showing she’s thinking over what to say next.

As for the other connections to the deficit approach, there are a couple less frequent ones. For example, Ulrika uses a tag question midway through the conversation when Victor says “I said when you’re up for eviction if you usually have arguments, you usually go” to which she responded “well you said that, yeah?” and though Lakoff suggests this is a sign of uncertainty, others have suggested otherwise. For example, Janet Holmes suggested in 1992 that tag question were actually just a politeness strategy to involve the other speaker and lengthen the conversation.        

Another point I find interesting is Ulrika’s choice of language which seems to purposely avoid any kind of conflict. For example, Ulrika speaks of Nadia in a positive manner, even though she’s stated she wanted Nadia to leave since the beginning. This could be considered a politeness strategy to avoid conflict as linguist John Locke has suggested that “Verbal dispution appears to be something that few women seek or expect to enjoy”.

What I also found interesting is Ulrika’s use of empty adjective “nice” to describe Nadia aswell. This term could be considered another politeness strategy to make Ulrika seem like she likes Nadia more that she actually does, yet again, avoiding conflict as she is using vague language.

In conclusion, I feel that this conversation clearly shows some differences in male and female language, such as Ulrika’s uses of politeness strategies, whilst Victor is a lot more blunt, as he speaks openly about how he “tried to get Nadia off for two months”. However, the use of Victor’s more emotive language to begin with may show that the gender lines are blurring a little, with men seeking conversation for more than just information.