英语口语课小组讨论中的性别构建
|
摘要
过去对性别和语言的研究采用二分法,基于生理特征的划分,着重于从缺陷论,支配论,和文化差异论三种角度探讨男女在语言使用上的性别差异,并把女性的语言特征描述为是男女在权势和地位上不平等的体现,混淆了生理性别和社会性别的含义,强调并夸大了男女之间的语言差异。随着社会的高速发展,人们的思想更加解放,女性越来越不愿受到传统性别的束缚,在价值感的强烈驱动下,渴望并已经在各个领域发挥越来越重要的作用。
在新的社会背景下,20世纪90年代以来,西方的语言与性别研究开始转向建构主义,认为性别不是静止的事先给定的因素,而是人们在每天的语言使用中产生的一种结果,建构论者强调特定语境的重要性,提倡语言与性别的微观研究,重点剖析特定实践群体中人们的语言行为。
本文采用建构主义的多元论,把性看作区别于生理性别的多层面的弥散的概念,并运用性别刻板印象,性别角色理论,通过观察中国海洋大学大一新生英语口语课小组讨论中使用的会话策略,来探讨男生女生对各自性别身份的建构。具体来说,就是通过考察话题控制,话轮转换,话语量多少,插话,打断,对待建议的态度等会话策略,试图描述并解释男女生在小组讨论中如何使用语言来构建并挑战传统的性别身份。本文选取了三个小组作定性分析,分别是两个男女混合组一个男生组。通过组间男女生的表现和不同性别组合之间的分析比较,结果表明:
1)女生在谈话过程中更多的使用笑声,问问题,回避词来表现自己的不确定和女性重视关系和合作的一面;女生对于建议普遍是支持的态度,这些语言特征的运用除了表达自己重视合作的女性气质外有时候也是对自身强势和支配力的一种缓和。另一方面,女生也给予男生直接的要求和建议,并在小组讨论中通过更好的英语技能和积极的参与态度达到支配小组讨论的目的。从语言建构性别的角度,女生通过男性气质和女性气质的综合运用来达到占据小组讨论支配权的目的。
2)男生在小组讨论中体现了明显的男性气质,他们较少的问问题,不经常掺杂笑声,对别人的建议并不给予赞同或承认,而是更多的为自己的想法辩论。但在男生不占支配地位的小组,他们也体现出了女性角色的特质。主要体现在更多的使用回避词和笑声以及较少的话语量和话轮数。
Previous researches on gender and language are devoted to examining the differences of language use between biologically different women and men. According to different perspectives on women’language, the gender and language studies (GLS) are conducted from deficiency approach, dominance approach and two cultures approach, studies within these three approaches are criticized for confusing gender with biological sex, and resulting in reinforcing and exaggerating differences between men and women. Since the 1990s, western scholars began to take on a new constructionist perspective on gender and language, the key of which lies in conceptualization of gender which is not considered as predetermined, rather, it is constructed during everyday interaction between people in specific context. It promotes exploration of language behavior in specific community of practice.
This thesis adopts constructionist approach that views gender as a discursive and multi-dimensional concept. In order to obtain sufficient sources of data, I observed three oral English classes enrolled by freshmen in their second semester at OUC for a whole month, videoed several groups’discussions and selected three of them as my linguistic analysis data. I use gender role theory and gender stereotype to try to explore gender performance in group discussion, specifically through analyzing their conversational strategies including turn-taking, use of hedges, questions, smiles and amount of talking, etc. to identify whether their linguistic performances conform to the traditional gender role and stereotype, and how they use them to construct, resist or challenge their gender identity in the context of second language education.
Findings indicated in the following:
1) Female students show a mix of femininity and masculinity. Specifically, their femininity is shown through frequent use of hedges, questions, laughing and supportive strategies to express their indetermination, affiliation and cooperation. On the other hand, they also betray masculinity by giving directions and expressing requests, doing the majority of talking and controlling the process of discussion. For them, remaining femininity is a strategy to mitigate their dominance and relieve boys from pressure.
2) The boys show obvious masculinity in the way that they seldom ask questions and laugh, they do not acknowledge positively towards girl’s suggestions even they accept them, and they tend to argue for their own opinions bluntly. Boys also show features of masculinity when they are not in the position of dominance through comparatively high use of hedges, asking questions and less contribution to the task.
在新的社会背景下,20世纪90年代以来,西方的语言与性别研究开始转向建构主义,认为性别不是静止的事先给定的因素,而是人们在每天的语言使用中产生的一种结果,建构论者强调特定语境的重要性,提倡语言与性别的微观研究,重点剖析特定实践群体中人们的语言行为。
本文采用建构主义的多元论,把性看作区别于生理性别的多层面的弥散的概念,并运用性别刻板印象,性别角色理论,通过观察中国海洋大学大一新生英语口语课小组讨论中使用的会话策略,来探讨男生女生对各自性别身份的建构。具体来说,就是通过考察话题控制,话轮转换,话语量多少,插话,打断,对待建议的态度等会话策略,试图描述并解释男女生在小组讨论中如何使用语言来构建并挑战传统的性别身份。本文选取了三个小组作定性分析,分别是两个男女混合组一个男生组。通过组间男女生的表现和不同性别组合之间的分析比较,结果表明:
1)女生在谈话过程中更多的使用笑声,问问题,回避词来表现自己的不确定和女性重视关系和合作的一面;女生对于建议普遍是支持的态度,这些语言特征的运用除了表达自己重视合作的女性气质外有时候也是对自身强势和支配力的一种缓和。另一方面,女生也给予男生直接的要求和建议,并在小组讨论中通过更好的英语技能和积极的参与态度达到支配小组讨论的目的。从语言建构性别的角度,女生通过男性气质和女性气质的综合运用来达到占据小组讨论支配权的目的。
2)男生在小组讨论中体现了明显的男性气质,他们较少的问问题,不经常掺杂笑声,对别人的建议并不给予赞同或承认,而是更多的为自己的想法辩论。但在男生不占支配地位的小组,他们也体现出了女性角色的特质。主要体现在更多的使用回避词和笑声以及较少的话语量和话轮数。
Previous researches on gender and language are devoted to examining the differences of language use between biologically different women and men. According to different perspectives on women’language, the gender and language studies (GLS) are conducted from deficiency approach, dominance approach and two cultures approach, studies within these three approaches are criticized for confusing gender with biological sex, and resulting in reinforcing and exaggerating differences between men and women. Since the 1990s, western scholars began to take on a new constructionist perspective on gender and language, the key of which lies in conceptualization of gender which is not considered as predetermined, rather, it is constructed during everyday interaction between people in specific context. It promotes exploration of language behavior in specific community of practice.
This thesis adopts constructionist approach that views gender as a discursive and multi-dimensional concept. In order to obtain sufficient sources of data, I observed three oral English classes enrolled by freshmen in their second semester at OUC for a whole month, videoed several groups’discussions and selected three of them as my linguistic analysis data. I use gender role theory and gender stereotype to try to explore gender performance in group discussion, specifically through analyzing their conversational strategies including turn-taking, use of hedges, questions, smiles and amount of talking, etc. to identify whether their linguistic performances conform to the traditional gender role and stereotype, and how they use them to construct, resist or challenge their gender identity in the context of second language education.
Findings indicated in the following:
1) Female students show a mix of femininity and masculinity. Specifically, their femininity is shown through frequent use of hedges, questions, laughing and supportive strategies to express their indetermination, affiliation and cooperation. On the other hand, they also betray masculinity by giving directions and expressing requests, doing the majority of talking and controlling the process of discussion. For them, remaining femininity is a strategy to mitigate their dominance and relieve boys from pressure.
2) The boys show obvious masculinity in the way that they seldom ask questions and laugh, they do not acknowledge positively towards girl’s suggestions even they accept them, and they tend to argue for their own opinions bluntly. Boys also show features of masculinity when they are not in the position of dominance through comparatively high use of hedges, asking questions and less contribution to the task.
引文
[1] Lakoff, R. 1975. Language and woman’s place. New York: Harper and Row.
[2] Basow, S. A., & Rubenfeld, K. 2003.“Troubles Talk”: Effects of Gender and Gender-Typing Effects. Sex Roles, 48, pp. 183-187.
[3] Bergvall, V. L. 1999. Towards a Comprehensive Theory of Language and Gender. Language in Society, 28. pp:273-293
[4] Booraem, C., & Flowers, J. 1978. A procedural Model for Training of Assertive Behavior. In J. Whitely & J. Flowers (Eds.), Approaches to Assertion Training. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. pp. 15–46.
[5] Bem, S.L. 1978. Sex-Role Inventory: Professional manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychology Press.
[6] Bryant, A.N. 2003. Changes in Attitudes toward Women’s Roles: Predicting Gender-Role Traditionalism among College Students. Sex Roles, 48, pp. 131-142.
[7] Bohan, J. 1993. Regarding Gender: Essentialism, Constructionism, and Feminist Psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17, pp. 5–22.
[8] Booraem, C., & Flowers, J. 1978. A procedural model for training of assertive behavior. In J. Whitely & J. Flowers (Eds.), Approaches to assertion training (pp. 15–46). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
[9] Butler, J.1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London: Rutledge.
[10] Cameron, D., McAlinden, F., & O’Leary, K. 1988. Lakoff in Context: The Social and Linguistic Function of Tag Questions. In J. Coates & D. Cameron (Eds.), Women in the Speech Communities: New Perspectives on Language and Sex. New York: Longman. pp. 13–26.
[12] Cameron, D. 1992. Feminism and Linguistic Theory (second edition), McMillan, London.
[13] Cameron, D. 2005. Language, Gender, and Sexuality: Current Issues and New Directions. Applied Linguistics,26, pp. 482–502.
[14] Carli, L.L.1990. Gender, Language, and Influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, pp. 941–951.
[15] Carli, L. L. 2010. Gender and Group Behavior. In J.C. Chrisler, D.R. McCreary (eds.), Handbookof Gender Research in Psychology, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, pp. 337-358.
[16] Connell, R.W. 1995. Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity Press.
[17] Cosgrove, L., & McHugh, M.C. 2008. A Post-Newtonian, Postmodern Approach to Science: Innovative Methods in Methods. New York: Guilford. pp. 73–87.
[18] Drudy, S.,& Chatháin, M.ú. 2002.Gender Effects in Classroom Interaction: Data Collection, Self-Analysis and Reflection. Evaluation and Research in Education.16, pp. 34-50.
[19] Duffy, J; Warren, K; and Walsh, M. 2001.Classroom Interactions: Gender of Teacher, Gender of Student, and Classroom Subject. Sex Roles, 45, pp. 579-593.
[20] Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. 2007. Through the Labyrinth: The Truth about How Women Become Leaders. Boston:Harvard Business School Press.
[21] Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. 2004. Language and Gender. Cambridge University Press.
[22] Epstein, C. 1988. Deceptive Distinctions: Sex, Gender, and the Social Order. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
[23] Einarsson, C. & Granstro¨M. K. 2002.Gender-Biased Interaction in the Classroom: The Influence of Gender and Age in the Relationship between Teacher and Pupil. Journal of Educational Research, 46, pp. 117-127.
[24] Edelsky, C. 1993. Who’s got the floor? In D. Tannen (Ed.), Gender and Conversational Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 189–227
[25] Eagly, A.H. 1987. Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[26] Edwards, R., Hamilton, M.A. 2004. You Need to Understand My Gender Role: An Empirical Test of Tannen’s Model of Gender and Communication. Sex Roles, 50, pp. 492-504.
[27] Fan, C. C. 1996. Language, Gender, and Chinese Culture. International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, 10, pp. 95-114.
[28] Henley, M., & Kramarae, C. 2008. Gender, Power and Miscommunication. In S. Ehrlich (Ed.), Language and gender. London: Taylor & Francis. pp. 133–154.
[29] Holmes, J. (1984). Women’s language: A functional approach. General Linguistics, 24, 149–178.
[30] James, D., & Drakich, J. 1993. Understanding Gender Differences in Amount of Talk: A Critical Review of Research. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Gender and Conversational Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 281–312
[31] Koch, S. C., Mueller, B., Kruse, L., and Zumbach, J., 2005. Constructing Gender in Chat Groups. Sex Roles, 53, pp. 29-41.
[32] Li Xiangming & Brand, M. 2009. Empirical Study of Gender Performance in Peer-to-Peer Talk in ESL Class. Teaching English in China, 32, pp. 115-126.
[33] Litosseliti, L. 2006. Gender and language: Theory and Practice. London: Hodder Arnold.
[34] Lott, B. 1990. Dual Natures or Learned Behavior: The Challenge to Feminist Psychology. In R. T. Hare-Mustin & J. Marecek (Eds.), Making a Difference: Psychology and the Construction of Gender. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. pp. 65–101.
[35] Maccoby, E. 1998. The Two Sexes: Growing Apart, Coming Together. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[36] MacKinnon, C. 1990. Legal Perspectives on Sexual Difference. In D. Rhode (Ed.), Theoretical Perspectives on Sexual Difference. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, pp. 213–225.
[37] MacGeorge, Graves, Feng, Gillihan, and Burleson. 2004. The Myth of Gender Cultures: Similarities Outweigh Differences in Men’s and Women’s Provision of and Responses to Supportive Communication. Sex Roles, 50, pp. 143-175.
[38] Maltz, D., & Borker, R. 2008. A Cultural Approach to Male-Female Miscommunication. In S. Ehrlich (Ed.), Language and Gender. London: Taylor & Francis, pp. 75–93
[39] McHugh, M.C., & Hambaugh, J. 2010. She Said, He Said: Gender, Language, and Power. In J.C. Chrisler, D.R. McCreary (eds.), Handbook of Gender Research in Psychology, pp. 379.
[40] Meyers, R. A., Brashers, D. E., Winston, L. & Grob, L. 1997. Sex differences and group argument: A theoretical framework and empirical investigation. Communication Studies, 48, pp. 19–41.
[41] Michaud, S. L., & Warner, R. M. 1997. Gender differences in self-reported response to troubles talk. Sex Roles, 37, pp. 527–540.
[42] Mulac, A. 2006. The Gender-Linked Language Effect: Do Language Differences Really Make a Difference? In K. Dindia & D. Canary (Eds.), Sex Differences and Similarities in Communication (2nd ed.,). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 219–240.
[43] Nelson, S., Larson, J., Sheikh, C., & Starks, R. 2006. The Effects of Gender and Status in Interactional Context. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Sociological Association, Montreal, QC, Canada.
[44] O’Barr, W., & Atkins, B. 2008.“Women’s language”or“Powerless language”? In S. Ehrlich (Ed.), Language and gender. London: Taylor & Francis. pp. 56–71
[45] Pavlenko, A.: 2001‘“How am I to become a woman in an American vein?”: Transformations of Gender Performance in Second Language Learning, in A. Pavlenko, Blackledge, A., Piller, I. and Teutsch-Dwyer M. (Eds.), Multilingualism, Second Language Learning, and Gender, Mouton De Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 133–174.
[46] Pavlenko, A 2008. Research Methods in the Study of Gender in Second/Foreign Language Education. In K. A. King and N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education, (2nd Edition), pp. 165–174.
[47] Pillon, A., Degauquier, C., and Duquesne, F.1992. Males' and Females' Conversational Behavior in Cross-Sex Dyads: From Gender Differences to Gender Similarities. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 21, pp. 147-172.
[48] Pryzgoda, J and Chrisler, J. C. 2000. Definitions of Gender and Sex: The Subtleties of Meaning. Sex Role, 43, pp. 553-569.
[49] Renzetti, C. M. 1987. New wave or second stage? Attitudes of college women toward feminism. Sex Roles, 16, pp. 265–277.
[50] Ridgeway, C.L. & Bourg, C. 2004. Gender as Status. In A.H. Eagly, A.E. Beall & R.J.59, Sternberg (Eds.), The Psychology of Gender. Guilford Press, pp. 217–241.
[51] Small, D., Babcock, L., Gelfand, M., & Gettman, H. 2007. Who goes to the bargaining table? The influence of gender and framing on the initiation of negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, pp, 600–613.
[52] Speer, S 2002.sexist talk: Gender categories, participants’orientations in irony. Journal of Sociolinguistics, pp. 347-377.
[53] Tannen, D. 1990. You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: Morrow.
[54] Vanwesenbeeck, I. 2009. Doing Gender in Sex and Sex Research. Arch Sex Behav, 38, pp. 883–898.
[55] West, C. & Zimmerman, D. 1987. Doing Gender. Gender and Society. pp. 126-127.
[56]陈春华. 2009.闲谈与社会性别建构.上海交通大学出版社.
[57]李经伟. 2001.西方语言与性别研究述评.解放军外国语学院学报.第24卷,第1期.pp. 11-15.
[58]周浩,赵光年, 2009.近十年国内语言性别差异研究概述[D].当代教育论坛. pp. 26-27.
[59] http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90002/98666/99430/6880456.html
[60] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensifier
[2] Basow, S. A., & Rubenfeld, K. 2003.“Troubles Talk”: Effects of Gender and Gender-Typing Effects. Sex Roles, 48, pp. 183-187.
[3] Bergvall, V. L. 1999. Towards a Comprehensive Theory of Language and Gender. Language in Society, 28. pp:273-293
[4] Booraem, C., & Flowers, J. 1978. A procedural Model for Training of Assertive Behavior. In J. Whitely & J. Flowers (Eds.), Approaches to Assertion Training. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. pp. 15–46.
[5] Bem, S.L. 1978. Sex-Role Inventory: Professional manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychology Press.
[6] Bryant, A.N. 2003. Changes in Attitudes toward Women’s Roles: Predicting Gender-Role Traditionalism among College Students. Sex Roles, 48, pp. 131-142.
[7] Bohan, J. 1993. Regarding Gender: Essentialism, Constructionism, and Feminist Psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17, pp. 5–22.
[8] Booraem, C., & Flowers, J. 1978. A procedural model for training of assertive behavior. In J. Whitely & J. Flowers (Eds.), Approaches to assertion training (pp. 15–46). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
[9] Butler, J.1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London: Rutledge.
[10] Cameron, D., McAlinden, F., & O’Leary, K. 1988. Lakoff in Context: The Social and Linguistic Function of Tag Questions. In J. Coates & D. Cameron (Eds.), Women in the Speech Communities: New Perspectives on Language and Sex. New York: Longman. pp. 13–26.
[12] Cameron, D. 1992. Feminism and Linguistic Theory (second edition), McMillan, London.
[13] Cameron, D. 2005. Language, Gender, and Sexuality: Current Issues and New Directions. Applied Linguistics,26, pp. 482–502.
[14] Carli, L.L.1990. Gender, Language, and Influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, pp. 941–951.
[15] Carli, L. L. 2010. Gender and Group Behavior. In J.C. Chrisler, D.R. McCreary (eds.), Handbookof Gender Research in Psychology, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, pp. 337-358.
[16] Connell, R.W. 1995. Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity Press.
[17] Cosgrove, L., & McHugh, M.C. 2008. A Post-Newtonian, Postmodern Approach to Science: Innovative Methods in Methods. New York: Guilford. pp. 73–87.
[18] Drudy, S.,& Chatháin, M.ú. 2002.Gender Effects in Classroom Interaction: Data Collection, Self-Analysis and Reflection. Evaluation and Research in Education.16, pp. 34-50.
[19] Duffy, J; Warren, K; and Walsh, M. 2001.Classroom Interactions: Gender of Teacher, Gender of Student, and Classroom Subject. Sex Roles, 45, pp. 579-593.
[20] Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. 2007. Through the Labyrinth: The Truth about How Women Become Leaders. Boston:Harvard Business School Press.
[21] Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. 2004. Language and Gender. Cambridge University Press.
[22] Epstein, C. 1988. Deceptive Distinctions: Sex, Gender, and the Social Order. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
[23] Einarsson, C. & Granstro¨M. K. 2002.Gender-Biased Interaction in the Classroom: The Influence of Gender and Age in the Relationship between Teacher and Pupil. Journal of Educational Research, 46, pp. 117-127.
[24] Edelsky, C. 1993. Who’s got the floor? In D. Tannen (Ed.), Gender and Conversational Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 189–227
[25] Eagly, A.H. 1987. Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[26] Edwards, R., Hamilton, M.A. 2004. You Need to Understand My Gender Role: An Empirical Test of Tannen’s Model of Gender and Communication. Sex Roles, 50, pp. 492-504.
[27] Fan, C. C. 1996. Language, Gender, and Chinese Culture. International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, 10, pp. 95-114.
[28] Henley, M., & Kramarae, C. 2008. Gender, Power and Miscommunication. In S. Ehrlich (Ed.), Language and gender. London: Taylor & Francis. pp. 133–154.
[29] Holmes, J. (1984). Women’s language: A functional approach. General Linguistics, 24, 149–178.
[30] James, D., & Drakich, J. 1993. Understanding Gender Differences in Amount of Talk: A Critical Review of Research. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Gender and Conversational Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 281–312
[31] Koch, S. C., Mueller, B., Kruse, L., and Zumbach, J., 2005. Constructing Gender in Chat Groups. Sex Roles, 53, pp. 29-41.
[32] Li Xiangming & Brand, M. 2009. Empirical Study of Gender Performance in Peer-to-Peer Talk in ESL Class. Teaching English in China, 32, pp. 115-126.
[33] Litosseliti, L. 2006. Gender and language: Theory and Practice. London: Hodder Arnold.
[34] Lott, B. 1990. Dual Natures or Learned Behavior: The Challenge to Feminist Psychology. In R. T. Hare-Mustin & J. Marecek (Eds.), Making a Difference: Psychology and the Construction of Gender. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. pp. 65–101.
[35] Maccoby, E. 1998. The Two Sexes: Growing Apart, Coming Together. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[36] MacKinnon, C. 1990. Legal Perspectives on Sexual Difference. In D. Rhode (Ed.), Theoretical Perspectives on Sexual Difference. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, pp. 213–225.
[37] MacGeorge, Graves, Feng, Gillihan, and Burleson. 2004. The Myth of Gender Cultures: Similarities Outweigh Differences in Men’s and Women’s Provision of and Responses to Supportive Communication. Sex Roles, 50, pp. 143-175.
[38] Maltz, D., & Borker, R. 2008. A Cultural Approach to Male-Female Miscommunication. In S. Ehrlich (Ed.), Language and Gender. London: Taylor & Francis, pp. 75–93
[39] McHugh, M.C., & Hambaugh, J. 2010. She Said, He Said: Gender, Language, and Power. In J.C. Chrisler, D.R. McCreary (eds.), Handbook of Gender Research in Psychology, pp. 379.
[40] Meyers, R. A., Brashers, D. E., Winston, L. & Grob, L. 1997. Sex differences and group argument: A theoretical framework and empirical investigation. Communication Studies, 48, pp. 19–41.
[41] Michaud, S. L., & Warner, R. M. 1997. Gender differences in self-reported response to troubles talk. Sex Roles, 37, pp. 527–540.
[42] Mulac, A. 2006. The Gender-Linked Language Effect: Do Language Differences Really Make a Difference? In K. Dindia & D. Canary (Eds.), Sex Differences and Similarities in Communication (2nd ed.,). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 219–240.
[43] Nelson, S., Larson, J., Sheikh, C., & Starks, R. 2006. The Effects of Gender and Status in Interactional Context. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Sociological Association, Montreal, QC, Canada.
[44] O’Barr, W., & Atkins, B. 2008.“Women’s language”or“Powerless language”? In S. Ehrlich (Ed.), Language and gender. London: Taylor & Francis. pp. 56–71
[45] Pavlenko, A.: 2001‘“How am I to become a woman in an American vein?”: Transformations of Gender Performance in Second Language Learning, in A. Pavlenko, Blackledge, A., Piller, I. and Teutsch-Dwyer M. (Eds.), Multilingualism, Second Language Learning, and Gender, Mouton De Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 133–174.
[46] Pavlenko, A 2008. Research Methods in the Study of Gender in Second/Foreign Language Education. In K. A. King and N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education, (2nd Edition), pp. 165–174.
[47] Pillon, A., Degauquier, C., and Duquesne, F.1992. Males' and Females' Conversational Behavior in Cross-Sex Dyads: From Gender Differences to Gender Similarities. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 21, pp. 147-172.
[48] Pryzgoda, J and Chrisler, J. C. 2000. Definitions of Gender and Sex: The Subtleties of Meaning. Sex Role, 43, pp. 553-569.
[49] Renzetti, C. M. 1987. New wave or second stage? Attitudes of college women toward feminism. Sex Roles, 16, pp. 265–277.
[50] Ridgeway, C.L. & Bourg, C. 2004. Gender as Status. In A.H. Eagly, A.E. Beall & R.J.59, Sternberg (Eds.), The Psychology of Gender. Guilford Press, pp. 217–241.
[51] Small, D., Babcock, L., Gelfand, M., & Gettman, H. 2007. Who goes to the bargaining table? The influence of gender and framing on the initiation of negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, pp, 600–613.
[52] Speer, S 2002.sexist talk: Gender categories, participants’orientations in irony. Journal of Sociolinguistics, pp. 347-377.
[53] Tannen, D. 1990. You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: Morrow.
[54] Vanwesenbeeck, I. 2009. Doing Gender in Sex and Sex Research. Arch Sex Behav, 38, pp. 883–898.
[55] West, C. & Zimmerman, D. 1987. Doing Gender. Gender and Society. pp. 126-127.
[56]陈春华. 2009.闲谈与社会性别建构.上海交通大学出版社.
[57]李经伟. 2001.西方语言与性别研究述评.解放军外国语学院学报.第24卷,第1期.pp. 11-15.
[58]周浩,赵光年, 2009.近十年国内语言性别差异研究概述[D].当代教育论坛. pp. 26-27.
[59] http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90002/98666/99430/6880456.html
[60] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensifier