17th March 2009
Week 1

We started off by giving some hints about the organization of the course (oral
presentations, assignments, participation to conferences, talks, material on
eclass, library stuff etc.) We saw the tentative course outline.
WEEK
TOPICS
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Week 5
Week 6
Week 7
Week 8
Week 9
Week 10
Week 11
Week 12
Introduction (Gender vs Sex)
Making up Gender –Gender and Speech Styles
Political Correctness – Reading Positions
Language use at the workplace (ch.4)
Women’s magazines / gender and consumerism (ch.7)
Talking power / Power and Solidarity (ch.9)
Women’s friendships (ch.10)
Story telling in New Zealand (ch.11)
Ligatures for girls and options for boys (ch.6)
Public Talk and Assertiveness Training
Deficit – Dominance – Difference and Social Change
Revision – Presentation of all term assignments
Coursebook: Wodak, Ruth (ed.) 1997. Gender and Discourse. London: Sage Publications
Office hours: Tuesday, 12:00-13:00 at 803.
You can also contact me via email: dkorda@enl.uoa.gr
Don’t forget to visit our eclass.uoa.gr for announcements, notes, assignments etc. There is going to
be an up-to-date commentary for each one of our classes with suggested bibliography.

I introduced the concepts of sex vs gender [gender viewed as a social
construct as opposed to sex which refers to biological characteristics].

We went on to discuss the notions of language in relation to the world
around us and how some human qualities are projected on inanimate
objects/animals and how the concepts of masculinity and femininity are also
projected to almost everything that revolves around us.
24th March 2009
Week 2
The first part of the class had to do with the qualities we associate with men and
women. We gave examples from adjectives, nouns, adverbs and verbs and we
discussed the denotative and connotative meaning of words. All students present
had to make lists of terms which they thought would be associated with either men
or women or both (with perhaps different connotative meaning, e.g. ‘well built’,
hunk, buxom etc.).
Another focus of the class was the qualities and attributes that women and men are
expected to have in society. After discussion we gradually extended that to include
the roles that women and men are expected to have in society. We also explored
the ways in which we all circulate these expectations via language and images in
many different contexts. Some of the contexts we examined were the home and
the school (as early stages of socialization), the world of advertisements and the
fictional world of novel and popular fiction. One class assignment set for this week
had to do with images and language used for advertisements in toy sections of some
popular Christmas catalogues.
The second part of the class was concerned with gender and speech styles of men
and women alike. The main line of thought focused on old protocols for the
linguistic behaviour of women (folklinguistics). We also explored set/fixed phrases
(he swears like a trooper or nice girls don’t swear) that reflect the norms governing
linguistic behaviour.
We also did a few theoretical “journeys” as far back as Otto Jespersen’s book in
1922. He described women’s language as deficient. We went on to account for
Robin Lakoff’s theory (1975) about ‘woman’s language’ and continued with Dale
Spender’s (1980) ‘man made language’ (male dominance). Finally, we referred to
Deborah Tannen’s theory about differences between the two sexes and the gender
scripts each one of them has in order to communicate and interact with each other.
We used the above authors to investigate how women’s language has been treated
in the past and under what circumstances. This will serve as the benchmark against
which we can explore some current perspectives on language and gender.
Suggested Reading:
Goddard, Angela & Lindsey Mean Patterson. 2000. Language
and Gender. New York / London: Routledge
31st March 2009
Week 3


Our class started off with some kinds of criticism against the theories
presented last time: deficit, dominance, difference.
The deficit model can be re-interpreted according to recent linguistic trends.
For instance, tag questions (Nice day, isn’t it?) are not considered signs of
uncertainty any more but diverse forms of interactive communicative
strategies. On top of that, these early theories did not take into account the
wider context (social and cultural): much early feminist research was
dominated by a white, middle-class, heterosexual, American point of view.
As far as the male dominance theory is concerned there was to a certain
extent a level of generalization in explanations which didn’t fit with many
people’s experience of men and women (e.g. a picture of men conspiring
how to do women out of their linguistic inheritance). Of course one of the
biggest difficulties was that cultural differences were still not being
accounted for.
The shift from looking at women either as deficient or oppressed users of
language was celebrated by the difference model. However, this move was
also criticized because ‘difference’ theorists overlooked the larger sociopolitical context. They were also criticized for not looking at the two sexes as
very much unlike different cultures: although we may learn what are
appropriate behaviours for our own sex, we also have ideas from very early
on about the opposite sex.
The main class explored the issue of politically correct language. We made a
historical survey of the use of the term over the past 30 years and we saw
some attempts to make changes in language use. The liberal approach is
meant to effect changes on the use of everyday language (chairman vs
chairperson, fireman vs firefighter etc.). The radical approach attempts to
either invent new terms for situations which have never been given a name
before (to granny) or give old words new meanings (spinster is a spiraling
dervish). Students who were present had to experiment with language and
be creative in making up new terms for familiar situations which have not
been successfully expressed so far (e.g. ‘woo-man’, men as ‘breakers’ etc.)
We also discussed issues relating to reading positions and more specifically
how written texts position us as readers. Then we went on to explore
whether there is gender positioning of the reader. We analysed an
advertisement for a playstation game (Zelda). We paid particular attention to
some strategies adverts are using in order to attract the narratee’s attention:
(a) they present a strong profile of the prospective consumers,
(b)
they
use highly interactive strategies –questions, direct address, (c) they use some
forms of intertextuality. For next time, students will collect some texts that
hey consider present a strong profile of the narrate (one idea is to look at
problem pages in male and female magazines).
For extra reading on political correctness (and other topics) you can consult
the notes I left at the library. You can also find all the handouts distributed so
far. All this stuff is to BE PHOTOCOPIED, NOT TO BE TAKEN AWAY.
7th April 2009
Week 4
Our class started with some practical exercises following the work done during the
previous class on texts and how they position us (problem pages from men’s and
women’s magazines, advertisements: Gloves for all seasons…) We carried on with a
presentation on the use of euphemism (more particularly the use of the word
“lady”).
The second part of the class constituted a close reading of Ch.4: men and women at
the workplace. There was a presentation on how women interact with each other
and how they enact authority in the workplace. We also explained the
methodological model proposed by Deborah Tannen through the multidimensional
grid about Distance-Closeness, Equality-Hierarchy.
The rest of the class was a hands-on analysis of women in ‘masculine’ jobs: how they
change their gender identity, how the profession they work for changes to
accommodate women (police force) and what speech behaviour is involved in such
environments.
28th April 2009
Week 5
The main topic of this class was about women’s magazines. We first introduced the
idea of consumerism and femininity and then went on with a historical overview of
women’s magazines since the early 19th century. In our discussion we included
issues like the multiple voices heard in magazines, the construction of consumer
femininity, power relations etc. included in Mary Talbot’s book Language and
Gender: an introduction (available in our library)
Since there was no presentation last time the class was divided into small groups and
students analysed a variety of mainstream and alternative women’s magazines. At
the end they reported to the rest of the class their findings (be it interesting, striking,
odd, ordinary or extraordinary).
We thus had the chance to
compare different women’s magazines
compare women’s with men’s magazines
compare all the modern women’s magazines available in class with an old version of
Γυναίκα of the year 1957.
At the end of the class we discussed some issues mentioned in Chapter 7 of Gender
and Discourse by Ruth Wodak, such as some features of women’s magazines that are
recurrent (e.g. obsession with appearance, desocialization, multimodality of
magazines etc.) We only touched upon the theoretical basis of the research which
connects MAK Halliday’s theory of interpersonal , semiotic, ideational functions of
language and Basil Bernstein’s theory of elaborated and restricted code.
5th May 2009
Week 6
This time our main aim was to introduce the idea of discourse and especially Critical
Discourse Analysis. We had a very close and detailed reading of the introduction in
Ruth Wodak’s book Language and Gender. We discussed issues like contextsensitive approaches to gender studies, feministic linguistics, discursive practices and
their immediate situational or institutional contexts in society. We opened up the
discussion to include Fairclough’s diagram of the conception of discourse as social
practice as this is presented by Mary Talbot in her book Language and Gender: an
introduction.
A Text is embedded in Discursive practices which are also embedded in Social
Practice.
One practical application of this was the exploration of antenatal discourse and the
positioning of women through the use of different language practices. Students
present in class resorted to material found in magazines and explored how the
medicalization of giving birth to a child is exaggerated and overnaturalised through
the use of language. For instance, they discussed in small groups a variety of texts
presenting mothers-to-be as patients-to-be. The main aim of such an activity was to
use the theoretical framework Text-Discursive practices-Social Practice in a practical
way.
The main topic of today’s class was Chapter 9 Talking power: Girls, Gender
Enculturation and Discource. During this class we had the chance to discuss double
voice discourse in girls’ conversations. From an early age girls are aware of the
conventions of the speech styles they are supposed to use and they know how to be
‘nice’ and have their own way at the same time. We discussed the findings of Amy
Sheldon’s research and then we opened up discussion as to what happens with
young boys and girls when they are faced with confrontational discourse. The class
was enriched by a research done by Deborah Tannen who investigated physical
alignment between boys and girls, men and women when they have intimate
conversations. The female friends physically aligned themselves with one another
and frequently looked at one another directly. The male friends, especially the
younger boys, aligned their bodies and eyes very much less. Topic cohesion was
another dimension of the same research which proved that girls/women discuss a
variety of topics devoting long periods of time to each one of them, whereas
boys/men select fewer topics and only devote a limited amount of time to each one
of them. This does not necessarily mean that boys/men are not able to have
intimate and sincere conversations among themselves; it’s only that they do it less
often and they grow up with different expectations about friendly, conversational
behaviour. The class ended with some examples of dialogues between same-sex
groups in the playground with girls showing rapport and support and boys displaying
their confrontational skills and their eagerness to have leaders for their ‘gangs’. This
kind of verbal behaviour may also result to miscommunication between adults who
were raised to a certain extent in gender-specific cultures.
At the very end of the class we had a look at writing skills which students will find
useful when writing their assignments which are going to be announced next week.
You can have a look at them in the relevant Lecture Notes area in the eclass.
Suggested Reading:
Talbot, Mary. 1998. Language and Gender: An Introduction.
Oxford: Polity Press (Chapters 1 and 3)
Tannen Deborah. 1996. Gender and Discourse. New York and
Oxford: Oxford University Press (Chapter 3:Gender Differences in
Conversational Coherence)
12th May 2009
Week 7
Today’s focus was women’s friendships. Students had to read chapter 10 of their
book, which was an article written by Jennifer Coates. There are 5 linguistic
strategies usually employed by women when they are having conversation with
other women: repetition, collaborative floor, story-telling, hedges and questions.
We discussed and shared our personal experiences of same-sex and mix-sexed
friendships.
The second part of the class was more practical and data-analysis oriented. We
analysed some authentic data collected by Jennifer Coates in another article of her’s:
“‘Thank God I’m a woman’: the construction of differing femininities”. The article,
enriched by detailed commentary, was included in an edited volume by Deborah
Cameron The Feminist Critique of Language (1988) and you can now find a copy of it
in our box in the Library.
For those of you who are interested in writing an essay, you can find a list of topics
on which you can work. Any other ideas are welcome provided you have a word
with me first.
Suggested Reading: Cameron, Deborah (ed.). 1988. The Feminist Critique of
Language. London: Routledge
19th May 2009
Week 8
The class started with a presentation which shed light to the linguistic strategies
used by women with their friends and the way these strategies relate to the concept
of silence (you can find a copy of this presentation in our box at the library).
Story telling was the main topic of our class. We highlighted some important notions
from chapter 11 of our book. In order to explore the function of story-telling both in
the ways interlocutors interact with one another and in the ways they construct their
gender identity we looked at some authentic data from Mary Talbot’s book
Language and Gender (1998) Part II. We extended our hands-on experience by two
more researches that presented findings relating to narratives at dinner-table by
Shoshana Blum-Kulka and child socialization through narrative practices by Ochs and
Taylor.
Suggested Reading: Talbot, Mary.1998. Language and Gender. An Introduction.
Oxford: Polity Press (Part II, photocopy from Telling stories)
26th May 2009
Week 9
The main focus of this class was gender in the educational setting. We explained
ligatures and options from David Corson’s article in the course book (chapter 6). We
enriched the class with two articles from Sara Mills’ edited book Language and
Gender. Interdisciplinary Perspectives (1995). The articles were about teachers’ and
students’ perspectives of how the two sexes are treated in the English class. We
added a third research conducted by Sadker & Sadker about gender in the American
educational system.
In the second part of the class we worked on a variety of projects done in Greek high
schools in order to sensitize students, parents and teachers about gendered
stereotyping which is prevalent in the greek society.
Suggested Reading:
Altani, Cleopatra 1995 ‘Primary school teachers’ explanations of boys’
disruptiveness in the classroom: a gender-specific aspect of the hidden
curriculum’ pp 149-159 in Sara Mills (ed) Language and Gender, Harlow and
New York: Longman
Sunderland, Jane 1995 ‘”We’re boys, miss!” finding gendered identities and looking
for gendering of identities in the foreign language classroom’ pp 160-178 in Sara
Mills (ed) Language and Gender, Harlow and New York: Longman
Myra, Sadker, David, Sadker, Lynn Fox & Melinda Salata 2004 “Gender Equity in the
Classroom: The Unifinished Agenda” pp 220-226 in Michael Kimmel (ed) The
Gendered Society Reader, Oxford: Oxford University Press
2nd June 2009
Week 10
The main topic of the class was women and the public talk. More specifically, we
discussed how women are actually (under)represented in the media and in their use
of public talk.
We examined women as users of Computer Mediated
Communication.
There was a student presentation on media discourse and how the same piece of
news can be ‘resignified’ depending on journalists’ ideological background. Then we
discussed the case of the female leader of the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition
(NIWC) and the treatment she received by the members of the Irish Parliament and
the media of her country.
In the second part of the class we discussed training sessions on being assertive and
their effects on the feminist movement. We started off with some warm up
exercises on assertive and non-assertive behaviour. We discussed research included
in Mary Crawford’s book Talking Difference On Gender and Language (1995) and we
found out that “the assertiveness training [became] a virtual panacea for women’s
problems which was recommended for almost everything: identity loss in newly
married women, super mother syndrome, mid-life depression, depression due to
loss, psychological problems in job settings, psychosomatic illness, drug/alcohol
abuse, and agoraphobia.” We concluded that this trendy movement was there to
just help editors market their books in the best possible way. “The assertiveness
training movement functioned to deflect attention from the fact that women are
over-represented in low-power, low-status social roles and situations. It constitutes
an example of ‘woman-as-problem’ thinking in which women are blamed for the
consequences of their low social status. Even more important, it illustrates how such
thinking can contribute to the continued powerlessness of women by channeling
energy into individual change efforts rather than collective action.”
Suggested Reading:
Talbot, Mary.1998. Language and Gender. An Introduction. Oxford: Polity
Press (Part II, Public talk, Talking on the net: computer-mediated
communication)
Walsh, Clare. 2001. Gender and Discourse. London: Longman
Crawford, Mary. 1995. Talking Difference. On Gender and Language.
London: Sage Publications (Unit 3 The Assertiveness Bandwagon)
9th June 2009
Week 11
Our class consisted of a student presentation on problematizing the theories of
dominance and difference. The discussion that ensued was rather theoretical and
we ended up with some practical applications of theory. We read a dialogue and we
interpreted the same data from discernibly different theoretical perspectives. The
conclusion we reached was that we need a multi-dimensional view of gender and
language instead of monolithic theories that overemphasize one aspect to the
detriment of another.
Suggested Reading:
Talbot, Mary.1998. Language and Gender. An Introduction. Oxford: Polity
Press
Littoseliti, Lia. 2006. Gender and Language. London: Hodder Arnold
16th June 2009
Week 12
This was the last class we had and it was mainly a revision class. We covered roughly
all the topics we had discussed in class and answered questions relating to the style
of the exam which is going to be both practical and theoretical.
In terms of the material covered during the first 3 weeks (basically stuff from Angela
Goddard’s book Language and Gender)we could summarize it as follows:
o
Language is not a neutral reflection of the world around us, but by using language, we
project onto the world our own sense of ‘reality’. Starting with the idea that different
languages encode objects and ideas differently, we went on to look at two specific types of
projection: the projection of humanness onto the inanimate world; the projection of gender
onto the inanimate and the animal worlds.
o
Then we looked at the qualities and attributes that women and men are expected to have,
and the way in which we circulate these expectations via language and images in many
different contexts.
o
The next issue we discussed was the ways in which our language is far from neutral.
Although the relationship is complex, you should now have some understanding of the way
in which language embodies our cultural and social values and the way we invoke these
automatically in our thinking. It should be clear that language is not a direct reflection of any
natural order but a daily enactment of a social one. This means that when we speak, we
don’t just say words, we speak our culture.
o
In breaking down what is meant by the term ‘political correctness’, two different types of
language use were identified as commonly being labeled under this heading:
o
o
new language items that have been suggested by liberal critics, for use in real contexts;
new language items that nave been created by radical critics, in order o reveal prevalent
ideologies, but not necessarily for everyday use.
o
It was suggested that the term ‘political correctness’ itself was typically used by people who
object to language reform per se, and who would classify all the examples above as wrongful
and misguided uses of English.
o
Last, there was a brief introduction to text analysis, applying to everyday texts (e.g.
advertisements) some of the ideas about gender and connotations, cognitive models and
social knowledge.
The second part of the class was devoted to small presentations on the part of the
students who had completed their assignments. They shared with us their initial
research questions and their findings. Course evaluation came last (which was
overall positive. Thank you!).