THEORIES OF GENDER AND POWER

DIFFERENCES: A DISCUSSION

Jariah Mohd. Jan

Faculty of Languages and Linguistics
University of Malaya

Abstract

Early studies on gender differences in conversation focused on differ­

ences between male and female conversational styles. For nearly all of
these issues of stylistic and conversational differences, there are many
some contradictory findings, and it seems that one must look closely at
the nature of the circumstances in order to predict how men and women
will behave verbally.
This paper discusses the theories of gender and power differences
namely deficit, dominance and sub-clIltural as proposed by research­
ers in the field of language and gender. Most recent research into gen­
der and language challenges the dominant sex-difference oriented ap­
proaches. which maintain that women are different from men, whether
essentially or by socialisation (e.g., Coales, 1986). This sex-difference
view either condemns women's different speech as socially dysfunc·
tional and deficient (e.g., Lakoff, 1975), or embraces it as a 'different but
equally valid' culture (e.g., Tannen, 1990). the 'different and deficient'
approach is criticised for implying that, to improve their social status,
individual women should transform their style, and adjust themselves
to men's linguistic nonns. Nevertheless, in principle, it is clear that in
122 JOURNAL OF MODERN LANGUAGES

many circumstances, women and men have access to the same set of
linguistic and conversational devices, and tend to use them differently
but for the same purposes. Apparent differences in usage reflect differ­
ences in status and in goals.

Introduction

Models of how conversation works aJe being continually developed and re­
fined and feminist research has contribuled important insights to this field of
knowledge. Work in this area has provided useful overviews and critiques of
mainstream linguistics. Many of the assumptions made by non-feminist re­
search into gendered language use have been questioned by feminists working
in this area. They have pointed out the androcentrism behind the aspects of
language use selected for investigation, the groups whose language use was
investigated, the methods of data collection used, and the explanation pro­
posed for the differences found (see Coates and Cameron, 1989· 13-26). The
question raised in the work of Coates and Cameron and other feminist lin­
guists, concerning the assumptions which have been made in linguistics, are
potentially a great contribution to the variety of research wilhin the field.

Conversational Styles: Gender Differences in Discussion

The different conversational styles adopted by the males and females in their
interaction with one another seem to have been largely ignored in communi­
cation research. Work by feminist researchers dealing with issues on gender
differences began to appear in the mid-seventies. For instance in 1975, Kramer
called for more research on sex-preferential differences in language use. Kramer
states that there is a need to consider not only the possibility of differences in
grammatical, phonological, and semantic aspects, but also possible differ­
ences in the verbal skills, instrumental use of language, and the relationship of
non-verbal uses to verbal behaviour. According to Kramer (1975 43),

We need to ask if there are differences berween sexes in their linguistic

competence. Do women control some speech structures or vocabulary
that men lack or vice versa? We need to ask if here there are differences
in linguistic performance. Are there sy ntactic structures, vocabulary,
phonological rules that say, women might know but not use while men
both know and use?

Kramer's questions are ones that have interested feminist sociolinguists and
several attempts have also been made to answer these questions.
 THEORIES OF GENDER AND POWER DIFFERENCES: A DISCUSSION 123

What is Gender?

The term gender is referred to as "a culturally shaped group of attributes given
to the female or to the male" (Humm, 1989' 64). According to Humm, the
'cultural shaping' is an on going, lifelong process which means that basically
gellder is unstable and multiple or 'non-unitary' It takes place primarily through
different discourses such as the discourses of male superiority, and of gender
equity It is considered a changing product of a given context (e.g. public
discussion), and as playing a role in constituting the social practices of that
context.

Doing Gender

From binh, one gender or the other is known by dint of our genital organs and
from then on we enact this gender following role models and how we are
expected to behave. It is not a case of simply being male or female: we do
gender through gendered activity including everything we utter and the ways
we are trained to interact with others.
In the context of a hierarchical society that dictates male dominance and
female subordination, regardless of our individual intentions, the way we do
gender in interaction are specific, intricate and for the most part, 'invisible'
(Uchida, 1992; West and Zimmerman, 1987). W hen men and women speak
they are left with the net result of the effects of this hierarchy often without
knowing why - without knowing that they have been using pattens of com­
munications that not only reflect but also serve to constitute patterns of domi­
nation and subordination.

Recent Debates on Gender

In the last 20 years, feminist sociolinguistic research has typically been con­
cemed with whether, and how, women and men use language differently, and
whether these differences are symptomatic of women's subordinate social
status, or contribute to their subordination, or are merely markers of gender
difference, and are the result of different sub-cultural norms rather than asym­
metrical power relations.
Linguist interested in how power is achieved and maintained through
discourse, and in evaluating and re-valuing women's conversational style, have
focused on certain features of conversation, and the differences in the use of
these features by men and women. Among the most interesting studied fea­
tures are the following:
124 JOURNAL OF MODERN LANGUAGES

Turn-taking, which includes looking at the propotion of time for which

any speaker hold floor, the average length of turns, and also whether the
exchange of turns happens without a discernable gap (latching), or
whether there are pauses between turns, or overlapping speech, or inter­
ruption (Edelsky, 1981, Coates, 1989; Talbot, 1992).
•
Questions and tag questions (Dubois & Crouch, 1975; Fishman, 1980;
Cameron et ai, 1989).
Topic introduction and development (Coates, 1989; Tannen, 1990).
•
Back channel support, when the listener makes 'mmm', 'yeah', 'uhuh'
sounds, or marks that they are actively listening in other verbal or non­
verbal ways (Fishman, 1980; Coates, 1989).
•
The use of hedging and epistemic modality to qualify the strength of the
speaker's opinion. This is realised by the use of expressions such as
'perhaps', '[ suppose', and epistemic modal auxiliaries such as 'could',
or 'might' (Holmes, 1984, 1987; Coates, 1987).
Aggravated and mitigated directives and responses, which relate to how
overtly 'orders' are given, or dissent is voiced (Goodwin, 1980, 1988;
West, 1990).

Gender-related differences have been found in all the above features of

conversation in numerous recent studies, but the studies have not always been
in agreement in their findings, nor in the interpretations of their findings.

Theories of Gender and Power Differences

The Deficit Theory of Conversational Differences

The theories of gender and power differences include deficit, dominance, and
sub-cultural differences as proposed by researches in the field of language
and gender.
According tn Robin Lakoff, the style of language which was typically
used by women "submerges a women's personal identity, by denying her the
means to express herself strongly and encouraging expressions that suggest
triviality in subject matter and uncertainty about it" (Lakoff, 1975: 7). The
features that were characteristic of women's speech syle, and thus denied
women 'the means to express [themselves] strongly' and instead make them
sound 'trivial' and 'uncertain' were as follows.

I. The use of words connected with women's culture (colour terms,

sewing terms) which are not in men's vocabulary, or are used dis­
paragingly by men.
ii. So-called "empty" adjectives, such as "divine" and "charming "
 THEORIES OF GENDER AND POWER DIFFERENCES, A DISCUSSION 125

w. Tag questiions and rising intonation used with grammatically de-

clarative utterances.
iv. The use of hedges to avoid being too assertive or direct.
v. The use of "so" as an intensifier, as in '" like him so much."
vi. Hypercorrect forms in pronunciation and grammar.
vii. Being "superpolite."
viii. Not telling jokes.
ix. Speaking in italics (which presumably refers to women's stress
patterns).
(Lakoff, 1975' 53-56)

Lakoff was working on the principle that women's speech patterns are
= than men's, in that they confirm women's subordinate social status and
prevent women from being treated as equals. The deficit model accepts an
androcentric view of the world, holding men's conversational style as the
norm, and women's departure from it as a lack. In some ways, however, it
overlaps with bOlh 'dominance' and 'sub-cultural' models. It shares with the
'dominance' model the idea that women's speech style reproduces their lower
social status. However, in contrast with the 'dominance' model, and in com­
mon with 'sub-cultural' model, it suggests that women's speech style is a
result of their gendered up-bringing, that is a function of feminitys, rather than
a consequence of asymmetrical power relations in every mixed-sex conversa­
tion,
Although Lakoff's work was welcomed by feminists when it first ap­
peared, her model of conversational differences has been criticised on several
grounds, and some of the criticisms will be discussed here because they indi­
cate some of the important methodological developments of the last eighteen
years.
First, Lakoff stands in danger of making a circular argument, whereby
Ihe forms identified as typical of women's language are considered 'weak'
forms because they are used by women, and not because of any linguistic
criteria of whal 'weak' forms might be. The study by William O'Barr and
Bowman Atkins (1980) of the speech of witnesses in Carolina court cases
investigated whether gender and weakness or lack of power should be conflated
in this way. They revealed that many of the features that Lakoff had associ­
ated with women's speech such as hesitation, hedging, and other indications
of self-doubt, were typical of insecure speakers or powerless speakers of
either sex. The features which Lakoff had associated with women's language
(hedging, hesitation) also occurred in the speech of inexperienced witnesses
(male and female) in court cases, while more experienced witnesses (female
and male) used these features less. Further studies that pursued the issue of
t26 JOURNAL OF MODERN LANGUAGES

'women's language or powerless language' include that of Leet-Pellegrini

(1980), Beattie (1981), and Woods (1989).
Leet-Pelligrini (1980) studied the ways gender and expertise interacted
in conversation to produce dominance. It is her study that influenced other
researchers in making the assumption that male experts are in a doubly pow­
erful position to dominate less expert females.
Woods (1989) looked at whether interruption in the workplace corre­
lated primarily with employment status or with gender. She found that while
women bosses were interrupted less than women subordinates, gender had a
stronger effect than status on who was interrupted by whom. Since Woods'
findings contradict O'Barr and Atkins' (1980) results, the complexity of this
question is evident and remains unresolved. It is possible that floor-apportion­
ment and hedging are independent of each other, and respond to different
aspects of the context.
A second criticism is that Lakoff's interpretation of linguistic forms was
simplistic. There was an assumption in her work that the relationship between
linguistic forms and their pragmatic function was monolithic. Research has
since drawn attention to the extent to which context affects meaning, and to
which linguistic forms are polypragmatic, fulfilling multiple functions in a
conversation.

The Dominance Theory of Conversational Differences

The 'dominance' theory of gender differences has focused on the distribution

of power in society, and suggested that women's speech reflect their subordi­
nate position. It allows for the analysis of how asymmetrical power relations
are achieved in daily interaction. Work within this model includes Pamela
Fishman's studies which claim that women do the 'shitwork' in conversa­
tions, that is, they do the conversational SUppOlt work that enables the con­
versation to happen and continue (Fishman, 1980). This is realised by asking
questions, introducing topics, and making active listening signals. Fishman
reported that the men in her studies would interrupt their partners, delay or
omit back channel support, reject topics offered by women, and hold the floor
for far longer periods than women.
The strength of this approach is that it offers an account of how power
is 'done' in conversations, how patriarchy can be achieved and maintained in
the personal sphere between a married couple, for example. It can also be
used to explain the reproduction of patriarchy as children learn gender-approriate
language use, which also teaches them their 'correct' role in society - domina­
tion or submission. According to this model, women can in theory change
their interactive patterns to subvert existing power relations.
 THEORIES OF GENDER AND POWER DIFFERENCES: A DISCUSSION 127

The main problem identified in the 'dominance' model is that there is no

place within it for valuing the style of speech associated with women. The use
of all the identified features is seen as a signal of submission, or lack of asser­
tion. From the perspective of the 'dominance' theory, to achieve parity with
men, women must change their interactive patterns, and abandon the 'shit­
work'
Secondly, the 'dominance' approach tends to treat power as monolithic,
limiting its applicability. Status is a complex category affected by context, as
Woods pointed out in the discussion on the contradictory results of D'Barr
and Atkins.

The Sub-Cultural Theory of Conversational Differences

In contrast to the 'dominance' explanation of gender differences in conversa­

tion the 'sub-cultural' model is able to endorse the work that women do in
conversation. This model acknowledges that being supportive and trying to
achieve solidarity rather than a hierarchy in a group of co-conversationalists,
may have intrinsic value. The explanation offered for the gender differences in
conversational styles is that an important part of our socialisation occurs in
single-sex peer groups, and that male and female peer groups have different
norms of communicative competence - competition for boys and co-opera­
tion for girls. These differences have been shown to develop in very early
childhood. Amy Sheldon's (1992) work suggests that sub-cultural differences
in conversational style are evident by the age of three. The strength of this
theory in comparison with the dominance approach is that women's speech
styles are no longer viewed negatively as the product of powerlessness and as
indication of submission. The conversational skills manisfested in women's
turn-taking and timing of minimal responses, for example, can be categorised:
the choice not to compete for the noor, not to interrupt, not to withhold back
channel support, or in other ways violate their own conversational norms, can
be seen as a strength of women's conversational style, not a weakness. This
style, it is argued, arises from a different sense of social relations and respon­
sibilities.
Work within this paradigm includes Maltz and Borker's (1982) paper, A
cultural approach to maleIemale miscommunication. In this paper they sug­
gest, though without empirical evidence, that women and men understand
back channel support differently, and that this can lead to misunderstanding,
frustration and communication breakdown. The theory is that back channel
support (noises such as 'mmm', 'uhuh', 'yeah', head nodding by the listener)
is a sign amongst women of active listening- it means I m listening', 'I un­
' '

derstand you, go on' For men, Maltz and Borker theorise, the same markers
mean I agree with you' As a result. in mixed-sex conversations. women
'
t28 JOURNAL OF MODERN LANGUAGES

wonder why men appear not to be listening to them, and men wonder why
women indicate they agree so often in their role of listener, and then perhaps
disagree with them later. The explanation offered for this pragmatic diver­
gence is once again that we learn crucial aspects of conversational compe­
tence in single-sex peer groups, and male and female peer groups have differ­
ent conversational norms.
Other areas of cross-sex misunderstandings according to Maltz and
Borker are the meaning of questions, the rules for linking utterances to the
ones made by previous speakers, the significance of displays of verbal ag­
gressiveness, the norms of topic shift, and attitudes towards advice giving. In
all these areas, Maltz and Borker suggest that women and men have different
expectations. One further example, from Coates' work, is the use of overlap­
ping speech. She suggests that whereas women listeners overlap the speaker
to indicate support for the speaker's contribution, men may interpret overlap
as competition for the floor (Coates, 1994).
The 'sub-cultural' approach, however, has been criticised for its ten­
dency to side-step the issue of power. Women's lesser social status is ignored
as a cause for the development of different peer group norms. The 'differ­
ence' approach also ignores the effect of the different speech styles in mixed
conversation in both the public and private domains - that a verbally combat­
ive style will dominate a conversational supportive style.
Achi Uchida has produced a valuable critique of the 'sub-cultural' ap­
proach (Uchida, 1992). She faults it for being simplistic in its assumption that
women and men belong to different cultures, and for its distinction between
'culture' and 'power' She identifies as a weakness the assumption that "the
same-sex ruled will directly be carried over to mixed-sex interaction" (1992:
555). She points out that children are not normally segregated from members
of the other sex, however much time they spend in single-sex peer groups,
and thus that the 'cross-cultural' analogy is false, since the basis of cross­
cultural miscommunication is explained in terms of lack of exposure to another's
culture (Ibid.: 556). She also criticises the difference approach because. she
argues, by ignoring the dimension of power, the difference approach has to
assume that parties on both sides will have an equal investment in adapting
their conversation styles to accommodate their interlocutor. This is clearly not
the case. It is women who are recommended to adapt their speech styles to
improve their relationships with their male counterparts as depicted, for ex­
ample, in Tannen's You Just Don't Understand (1991) which targets women.
Although all the models have their critics, they have all contributed to­
wards improving aUf understanding of how conversation works, forms of
gender difference. the maintenance of these differences, and the value set on
different styles by society The deficit, dominance and sub-cultural models
are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The concepts of 'deficit' and 'differ-
 THEORIES OF GENDER AND POWER DIFFERENCES: A DISCUSSION 129

ence' can only emerge as a result of the patriarchal power explicitly recognised
in the 'dominance' theory, since it is a patriarchy which creates and maintains
gender differences at all levels. There seems to be general agreement amongst
many linguists working in this area that none of these theories offers a totally
satisfactory explanation, either singly or in combination, of gender differences
in conversational styles. One aspect of difference theory that has been criticised
is that women and men are frequently implicity regarded as internally homog­
enous groups. Differences between individual women, and the differences
between individual men, are not taken into account often enough. Neither is
sufficient account taken of other social formations, such as ethnicity, class,
and sexuality, which affect the power dynamics of interactions. Furthermore,
styles which are 'normal' for groups of white, middle class, well-educated,
women and men, for example, may be very unusual for other social groups,
and thus generalisations made on the basis of the behaviour of one group of
people may be totally invalid.

Coates' Approach to Women's and Men's Convensational Styles

Coates (1986: 161) asserts the importance of both the difference and the
dominance explanations of the differences observed in women's and men's
conversational styles. She suggests that to explain patterns of mixed-sex in­
leraction, a model needs to recognise patriarchal power at work. However,
she is dissatisfied with attempts to explain women's behaviour in Single-sex
interaction as a function of their subordinate social status. In the context of
all-women groups, Coates argued that a model of sub-cultural difference is
necessary She contends that under these conditions, women's language has
features which are identifiable as a style, distinct from the style used b y men
in the single-six interaction. She states that:

...the differences in conversational style between all-women and a1l­

men groups arc a reflection of sub-cultural differences such as
acknowledgement is a necessary precursor to recognising that women's
talk is as deserving of sociolinguistic description in its own right as

men's talk.

(Coates, 1986: 161)

Coates claims that it is possible to talk of 'women's style' and 'men's style' In
the context of single-sex groups, Women's speech behaviour and men's speech
behaviour are characterised by different linguistic features. Women's speech
in single-sex groups has a relatively high frequency of linguistic features that
are supportive of other group members, and minimise conflict. Men's speech
in single-sex groups has a relatively high frequency of features which estab-
130 JOURNAL OF MODERN LANGUAGES

lish hierarchies within the group, are information-oriented rather than socially­
oriented, and can be described as competitive in function.
Coates' position on this issue has shifted from her early gender and
language work. In her 1986 edition of Women, Men Gnd Language, she sub­
scribes to the model of sub-cultural differences based primarily on different
gender traits being encouraged in children. "It is surely desirable that, as speak­
ers, we all have access to as wide a range of styles as possible. The ideal,
androgynous speaker would be able to switch from assel1iveness to tentative·
ness as circumstances required, and would be as good at listening as speak­
ing," (Coates, 1986: preface). This suggests that differences between male
and female speakers are just a matter of stylistic choice. Only a slight
acknowledgement is made in this preface to the relative positions of women
and men in the social hierarchy. "Linguistic differences are merely a rellection
of social differences. And as long as society views men and women as differ­
ent and - unequal - then differences in the language of men and women will
persist," (Coates, Ibid).
Coates has recently changed her stand, on the following: 1) the extent to
which power is a variable in style of speech; 2) the extent to which dominance
is achieved through speech styles; and 3) the extent to which the inequality is
produced and maintained in language use, rather than language use merely
rellecting social inequality. The 1986 edition of Coates' Women, Men and
Language reads, "... while not directly responsible for their underachievement,
the way girls use language is a contributory factor to their disadvantaged
position," (Coates, 1986: 160). The 1993 revision, however, reads "[tJhe dif
ferential usage of interactional resources by teachers, girls and boys inside the
classroom is a key element in sustaining male dominance," (Coates, 1993:
202). Coates' recent work reveals a conviction that gender differences in
language use are an important factor in producing gender-related inequalities.

Co-operative and Competitive Talk Paradigm

In all-female conversation, Coates identified certain features that occurred

frequently, and had either not been the main focus of previous work on con­
versation, or else had been explained in terms which Coates disputed. These
features, typical of all-female conversation according to Coates, were over­
whelmingly co-operative and group-oriented in function, and contrasted with
features, particularly absent from Coates' all-women data but frequent in male
conversatlon, which are information oriented. and have a competjtive fune·
tion.
Coates is far from being the only linguist to have noted the differences in
women's and men's conversational styles, and other linguists, such as Maltz
& Barker (1982), and Wodak (1981), have used a co-operative/competitive
 THEORIES OF GENDER AND POWER DIFFERENCES, A DISCUSSION 131

distinction to describe the way certain linguistic forms function. The use of
the positive term co-operative to describe features of discussions is preferred
by linguists adopting the 'difference' rather than the 'dominance' explanation
for gender differences in conversation. The same features have previously
been described as 'tentative' and 'powerless', because of their association
with the speech of women rather than because of the inherent linguistic func­
tions. The sub-cultural approach aims to move away from androcentric evalu­
ations of the speech features associated with women, and thus the term co­
operative indicates the social value of forms previously described as 'unas­
sertive' .

Conclusion

Feminist research must be careful not to reproduce stereotypes uncritically,

or assume that women are a homogeneous group who always behave in the
same way It seems that this is an empirical question, and the available re­
search evidence points clearly to the same speech style differences between
men and women speakers recurring across many contexts, appearing even
where male and female speakers are engaged in the same activity (cf. Goodwin,
1988; Tannen, 1990; Cheshire and Jenkins, 1991). In all these studies, con­
ducted in a variety of contexts, the male speakers produced more competitive
features than did the female speakers, and the female speakers produced more
co-operative features than did the male speakers. This certainly suggests there
are measurable differences in styles of speech adopted by women and men in
certain situations, and that in the contexts studied, the speech of women is
more co-operative than the speech of men. While nothing the reservations of
scholars like Coates and Cameron, the basic argument of gender differences
in conversational styles is closer to the position held by Tannen (1990) in the
conclusion of her investigation of topic coherence in 'best friends' talk, that
men and women have different goals in talk, which are carried over to all or
most contexts.
132 JOURNAL OF MODERN LANGUAGES

References

Coates, J 1986. Women, Men and Lal/guage. London.Longman.Reprinted in

1993.

______ .1987. Epistemic Modality and Spoken Discourse.Trans·

actions of the Phililogical Society, 110-131

_______ . 1989 Gossip Revisted. Language in All-Female Groups.In

J Coates and D.Cameron (eds.,)
London: Longman.

_______ .1994. No Gap, Lors of Overlap, Turn Taking Patterns in

the Talk of Women Friends. In D.Graddol, J Maybin and B Stiever
(eds.),
Matters. Clevedon.

Edelsky, C.1981 Who's got the floor? Language in Society, 10,383-421.

Fishman, P 1980. Conversational Insecurity In H.G Robinson, W Peter, and

P.M.Smith, (eds.)
ford.Pergamon Press, 129-132.

Humm, M..1989 The Dictionary of Feminist Theory London. Harvester

W heatsheaf.

lariah Mohd. Jan. 1999. Malaysian Talk Shows. A Study of Power and Soli­
darity ill liller-Gender Verbal Interaction Unpublished PhD T hesis, Uni­
versity of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.

Kramer, C.1975. Stereotypes of Women's Speech: The Word from Cartoons.

lournal of Poplliar Cultllre, 8:3,624-638.

Lakoff, R.T 1975 Langllage and Women:S Place. New York: Harper and
Row.

Leet-Pellegrini, H.M. 1980. Conversational Dominance as a Function of Gen­

der and Expertise. In H. Giles, P Robinson and P.M.Smith (eds.,)
guage and Social Psychological Perspectives. Oxford.Pergamon Press.

Maltz, D.and Borker, R.1982. A Cultural Approach to Male-Female Miscom­

munication. In J.J Gumperz (ed.,)
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 197-216.
 THEORIES OF GENOER AND POWER DIFFERENCES: A DISCUSSION 133

O'Barr, and Atkins, B. 1980. " Women's Language" or "Powerless Language?"

In S. McGonnell-Ginet, R.Borker and N Furman (eds.),
Language in Literature alld Society New York: Praeger.

Sheldon, A.1990. Pickle Fights: Gendered Talk in Preschool Dispules.Dis­

course Processes, 13: 1,5-31

Talbot, M. 1992. "I Wish You'd Stop Interrupting Me!" Interruptions and
Asymmetries in Speaker-Rights in Equal Encounters. Journal of Prag­
matics, 18, 451-466.

Tannen, D. 1990. Gender Differences in Topical Coherence: Creating Involve­

ment in Best Friends' Talk. In B Dorval (ed.),
Orgallisatioll alld its Developmem. Norwood, New Jersey' Ablex.

______ . 1991 YoulLlst DOII't Ullderstalld. Womell alld Mell ill COII­
versatioll. London: Virago.

Uchida, A. 1992. When "difference" is "dominance'" A Critique of the "Anti­

Power- Based" Cultural Approach to Sex Differences.Lallguage alld
Society, 21:4, 547-568.

West, C. and Zimmermann, D.1987 Doing Gender. Gellder and Society, 1:2,
125-151

Wodak, R. 1981 Women Relate, Men Report: Sex Differences in Language

Behaviour in a T herapeutic Group.Journal of Pragmatics, 5,261-285

Woods, N 1989 Talking Shop: Sex and Status as Determinants of Floor

Apportionment in a Work Setting. In J Coates and D. Cameron (eds. )
Womell alld Their Speech Commullities London.Longman.