Search the digital library catalog

Abstract: This master´s thesis examines the role of gender in political interviews. It focuses on how men and women use linguistic features in eight selected political interviews. The purpose of this study was to examine the use of the following linguistic features to see if men and women use them differently: minimal responses, hedges, tag questions, elicitation types, interruptions, silences, pauses and hogging the floor. The political interviews were transcribed according to Tannen´s transcription conventions (2007). Previous research indicates that women use the above-mentioned linguistic features to connect and show support, while men use them to dominate and have power over the conversation. The following hypotheses were tested in the study: Hypothesis 1: Women use minimal responses more than men. Hypothesis 2: Women use more hedges than men. Hypothesis 3: Women use tag questions more than men. Hypothesis 4: Men interrupt women more than women interrupt men. Hypothesis 5: Overlapping talk is used more by men than women. Hypothesis 6: Male speakers talk more than female speakers. Hypotheses 7: Men use elicitations to attack and women to support. Contrary to our expectations the results reveal that men use more minimal responses and hedges than women. By doing that they maintain their power and control over the interview. Also, women do not use more tag questions than men. On the other hand, in mixed-gender interviews women interrupt the conversation more than men. There are fewer overlaps when there are two females in the interviews compared to mixed-gender interviews. Our results also showed that men dominate the talking time. This study is limited to eight interviews; however, its findings can be used as a basis for further research in this area.
Keywords: gender, interview, language, women´s language, linguistic features
Published in DKUM: 03.06.2022; Views: 849; Downloads: 46
Full text (2,62 MB)

Abstract: This dissertation deals with a sociolinguistic analysis of attitudes towards Euro-English (E-E), denoting a specific variety of the English language as is primarily used within the multicultural and multilingual professional contexts of the European Union (EU) institutions. Particularly within the European Commission (EC) English has acquired the role of the primary working language. This is apparent from the most recent figures provided by its translation service, according to which as many as 81.3% of source documents were written in English in 2014 (as compared to 77.6% in 2012 and 62% in 2004), followed by French with only 5%. Consequently, 285 EC representatives from different EU member states were surveyed on their attitudes towards E-E, primarily focusing on those respondents whose mother tongues are not English. Crucially, they were asked to evaluate several sentences that deviated from Standard English according to their perceptions of what is acceptable English usage and what is not. Beforehand, a corpus-based analysis was conducted in order to determine which potentially E-E features to integrate within the acceptability test. Importantly, the authors of the examined EU material are deemed congruent as much as possible with the participants of the attitudinal analysis, as they all work for one of the main EU institutions. The main findings reveal that the high acceptability rates of the proposed deviant sentences among the surveyed non-native English-speaking EC representatives were primarily related to their lower proficiency in the English language and/or mother tongue interference, whereas we argue that the surveyed native speakers accepted most of them because they failed to apply a known language system accurately. Accordingly, we found out that the participants as a whole generally adhere to native models of English, i.e. British English, and thus do not personally endorse a European variety of English as a standard of linguistic correctness in their minds. Although specific usage that differs from the standard use of English has to an extent been developed within the EU institutions, the identified features must be regarded as EU jargon; which may be more or less obvious; rather than a particular E-E variety already expressing common EU culture and identity. We conclude that an independent variety of English, comparable to the Inner or Outer Circle Englishes, neither exists to date nor is in its earliest stage of development within the EU institutions.
Keywords: sociolinguistics, attitudes towards language, Euro-English, lingua franca, European Commission, working language, corpus linguistics, linguistic features, competence in English.
Published in DKUM: 13.06.2016; Views: 1623; Downloads: 179
Full text (5,78 MB)