The purpose of this study is to reveal characteristics of gender discourse systems in English discourse from the analysis of miscommunications and breakdown which occur on intergender discourse in everyday situations.
This study has done two analyses of four pieces of film script: one is the tr...
The purpose of this study is to reveal characteristics of gender discourse systems in English discourse from the analysis of miscommunications and breakdown which occur on intergender discourse in everyday situations.
This study has done two analyses of four pieces of film script: one is the traditional analysis of frequency of linguistic forms to show the tendency of differences in gender discourse systems, the other is to show different gender interpretive frameworks, which might cause gender conflicts to lead miscommunications and breakdown on intergender communication.
This study has shown the result that the analysis by frequency is not adequate to tell the linguistic differences in gender discourse systems. Our analysis of gender tendency of use of tag questions and abusive language has confirmed those of other linguists, but could not recognize previous studies about volubility, interrogative sentences, imperative sentences, hedges and minimal responses. It implies that frequency tendency of linguistic forms is not reasonable to generalize characteristics of gender discourse systems.
This study has tried to seek an alternative and to reveal characteristics of gender discourse by interpretive frameworks on the basis of the work of Tannen(1990) and Scollon & Scollon(1995), which claimed that gender discourse forms two distinct discourse systems, in spite of the fact that they are grown up in the same families, educated together, work in the same companies together.
In terms of power-dominance, male is highly concerned with vertical hierarchical status, while female with horizontal solidarity. This gender difference in power-dominance makes different assumption of operating communication systems, by which the hierarchical communication system operates for male, while the solidarity one for female. According to operating communication systems, male tends to use and interpret linguistics strategies of independence, while female those of involvement. These produces gender interpretive frameworks, and characteristics of gender discourse systems.
In terms of value-belief, two paradoxical values of independence and interdependence reveal two different interpretive frameworks in intergender discourse. Male values independence highly, while female interdependence, which constructs characteristics of gender discourse systems. This study confirms that conflict of two values brings gender conflict in interpretive frameworks, and leads miscommunications and breakdown in intergender discourse.
In addition, ideological symbolic gender images which have been formed culturally and historically, produce characteristics of gender discourse systems. In general, masculinity is reported to be associated with toughness and roughness, while femininity, in contrast, with respectability, gentility and high culture.
In particular, this study recognizes that these different interpretive frameworks are applied differently to different situations in which participants assume regardless of gender.
Gender differences in discourse are perennial dilemma. since it is impossible to change their senses of identity and to change their discourse systems. Therefore male and female should accept the characteristics of each other's discourse systems to minimize miscommunications or breakdown. Furthermore the present society of soft culture is offering the same opportunity to participate in realization of high values of the society to both genders. This might decrease gender prejudices. It implies that two different gender discourse systems might be closer to each other.
The purpose of this study is to reveal characteristics of gender discourse systems in English discourse from the analysis of miscommunications and breakdown which occur on intergender discourse in everyday situations.
This study has done two analyses of four pieces of film script: one is the traditional analysis of frequency of linguistic forms to show the tendency of differences in gender discourse systems, the other is to show different gender interpretive frameworks, which might cause gender conflicts to lead miscommunications and breakdown on intergender communication.
This study has shown the result that the analysis by frequency is not adequate to tell the linguistic differences in gender discourse systems. Our analysis of gender tendency of use of tag questions and abusive language has confirmed those of other linguists, but could not recognize previous studies about volubility, interrogative sentences, imperative sentences, hedges and minimal responses. It implies that frequency tendency of linguistic forms is not reasonable to generalize characteristics of gender discourse systems.
This study has tried to seek an alternative and to reveal characteristics of gender discourse by interpretive frameworks on the basis of the work of Tannen(1990) and Scollon & Scollon(1995), which claimed that gender discourse forms two distinct discourse systems, in spite of the fact that they are grown up in the same families, educated together, work in the same companies together.
In terms of power-dominance, male is highly concerned with vertical hierarchical status, while female with horizontal solidarity. This gender difference in power-dominance makes different assumption of operating communication systems, by which the hierarchical communication system operates for male, while the solidarity one for female. According to operating communication systems, male tends to use and interpret linguistics strategies of independence, while female those of involvement. These produces gender interpretive frameworks, and characteristics of gender discourse systems.
In terms of value-belief, two paradoxical values of independence and interdependence reveal two different interpretive frameworks in intergender discourse. Male values independence highly, while female interdependence, which constructs characteristics of gender discourse systems. This study confirms that conflict of two values brings gender conflict in interpretive frameworks, and leads miscommunications and breakdown in intergender discourse.
In addition, ideological symbolic gender images which have been formed culturally and historically, produce characteristics of gender discourse systems. In general, masculinity is reported to be associated with toughness and roughness, while femininity, in contrast, with respectability, gentility and high culture.
In particular, this study recognizes that these different interpretive frameworks are applied differently to different situations in which participants assume regardless of gender.
Gender differences in discourse are perennial dilemma. since it is impossible to change their senses of identity and to change their discourse systems. Therefore male and female should accept the characteristics of each other's discourse systems to minimize miscommunications or breakdown. Furthermore the present society of soft culture is offering the same opportunity to participate in realization of high values of the society to both genders. This might decrease gender prejudices. It implies that two different gender discourse systems might be closer to each other.
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.