Outline Background Background, continued Hypothesis Northern

Outline
If you’re “heppy” and you know
it, front your /ae/
Steve L. Johnson III
Michigan State University
NWAV 35 - November 11, 2006
 Gender in sociolinguistics
 Gender in sociology
 Pilot Study
Background
Background, continued
 Gender-differentiated patterns of
 Bem’s (1974) Sex Role Inventory
language use
 “Gender Paradox” (Labov, 2001)
 Bem’s (1981) Gender Schema Theory
 Wagner (2006), Eckert (1989)
 McCrae and Costa (1997) Personality
Hypothesis
Northern Cities Shift
 Individuals who score similarly on a
survey of gender traits will pattern
similarly in language use, regardless of
biological sex
 Northern Cities Shift
1
Participants
Methodology
 12 speakers (7 women and 5 men)
 Self-rated survey of gendered
 College students at MSU
 Metro Detroit Area
personality traits
 Reading Passage and Word List
 Interview
 F2 of /ae/ , 115 tokens
Self-Rating Sample
How well do the following terms describe you
on a scale from 1 to 7. (1 meaning the term
does not describe you at all and 7 meaning
that the term describes you very well)
e.g. affectionate:
1 = I am not at all affectionate ---------- 7 = I am very affectionate
Gendered Traits
Women
Men
Affectionate
Cheerful
Compassionate
Soft spoken
Shy
Sympathetic
Gentle
Feminine
Understanding
Warm
Analytical
Independent
Ambitious
Competitive
Masculine
Assertive
Athletic
Self-reliant
Dominant
Aggressive
Results
Influence of Cheerfulness
Influence (r2 > 15%)
No Influence
Cheerful
Warm
Affectionate
-Masculine
Feminine
Sympathetic
Compassionate
Ambitious
Gentle
Understanding
Competitive
Athletic
Self-reliant
Analytical
Aggressive
Dominant
Shy
Soft spoken
Assertive
Independent
2
Masculinity vs. Femininity
Indexes of Gender?
Add scores up for each gendered trait
and group together to give a Femininity
Index and Masculinity Index.
Each index ranges from 7-70.
Applying the Indexes
Summary
 /ae/-fronting is promoted among those who
Name FemIndex
F2 Ave
Emma 51
2045
Gabby 50
John 50
2197
2032
have self-identified as cheerful, warm,
affectionate, feminine, non-masculine,
sympathetic, compassionate, and ambitious
 All traits except for ambitious are traditionally
associated with women
Gabby vs John: p = .005
Gabby vs Emma: p=.025
 Gender Indexes do not seem to be sensitive
enough
Emma vs. John: p= .831
Conclusion
 Individual identity traits impact language use.
 A more subtle examination of an individual’s
traits can be equally (or more) important than
the use of traditional sociological variables.
Questions/Comments?
If you’re cheerful, affectionate, etc.,
and you know it,
then your NCS will show it…
So if you’re “heppy” and you know it,
front your /ae/!
3
References
Bem, Sandra. 1974. "The Measurement of Psychological Androgyny." Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology 42: 155-162.
Bem, Sandra. 1981. "Gender Schema Theory: A Cognitive Account of Sex Typing."
Psychological Review 88 (4): 354-364.
Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). NEO PI-R. Professional manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Eckert, Penelope. (1989). Jocks and burnouts: Social categories and identity in the
high school. New York: Teachers College.
Labov, William. (2001). Principles of Linguistic Change: Social Factors. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Wagner, Suzanne Evans. (2006). "We act like girls and we don't act like men": The use of
the male-associated variable (ay0) in South Philadelphia. Paper presented at PLC 30,
University of Pennsylvania, February 25 2006.
4

Download Report