Professional Documents
Culture Documents
INTRODUCTION
Researchers in the area of language and gender have recently begun to
examine the ‘multiplicity of experiences of gender’ (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet
2003: 47) in different social contexts and communities of practice. A number
of researchers, for example, have explored the concept of masculinity, and
indeed ‘masculinities’ (Connell 1995; Cameron 1997; Edley and Wetherell 1997;
Johnson and Meinhof 1997; Kiesling 1998, 2004; Bucholtz 1999; Mea“ n 2001;
Coates 2003; Bell and Major 2004). Some attention has also been paid to ‘the
multiplicity of . . . femininities’ (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet 2003: 48), that
is, the dynamic and diverse ways in which people construct different kinds of
femininity in social interaction in different contexts (e.g. Okamoto 1995; Livia
and Hall 1997; Cameron 1997, 1998; Coates 1997, 1999; Cameron and Kulick
2003). This paper contributes to this enterprise by analysing some of the ways
in which people construct and negotiate different femininities in white-collar
New Zealand workplaces.
Example 16
Context: Ruth is the department manager. Nell is a policy analyst. Nell has prepared an
official letter on which Ruth is giving her some feedback.7
1. Ruth: it’s actually quite I mean it’s
2. it’s well written [inhales] I just have
3. I just think the approach is could
4. should be a bit different in terms of see like
5. the organisation wouldn’t
6. we wouldn’t usually say something like this
7. that I mean it’s true but um we should probably
8. put in there that um the organisation has
9. what we did actually in terms of
10. providing advice on other avenues of funding
11. /but\ what the organisation ¼
12. Nell: /mm\
13. Ruth: ¼ provides is a policy advice organisation
14. and does not have um þþ
15. they actually have only limited funding for
16. sponsorship þ (and) I’ve just realised though
17. that this is (like) that they go in a couple of weeks
18. it might have been worth talking to Stacey
19. about um funding through
20. I think it’s through [name of funding agency]
21. ( ) last year we got funding for [tut] a someone
22. from [name of organisation] to attend
23. an international conference [drawls]:in: India
24. I think þ I can’t remember exactly the criteria
25. but there is a fund there and it may might be a bit late
26. but just I mean Stacey knows the contacts
27. and I think it’s in [name of funding agency]
28. and whether or not it’s worth having a talk to them about . . .
Ruth wants Nell to make some amendments to the letter, and the interaction is
clearly potentially face threatening. Ruth’s strategy for conveying her critical
comments and her directives entails the use of a range of classic face-saving
mitigation devices. In this short interaction, she uses a variety of hedges and
minimisers (in bold above): could, may, might, probably, just (2), actually (3), I
mean (3) and I think (5), and approximators, a bit, I think it was, I can’t remember
exactly, etc. These devices minimise the force of the face-threatening implicit
criticisms and directive speech acts, and pay attention to Nell’s face needs
(Brown and Levinson 1987).8
Ruth also minimises the critical implications of her comments by emphasising
the positive. So she begins by highlighting the fact that Nell’s version of the
letter is fine, it’s well written (line 2). She also acknowledges that what Nell has
said is true (line 7), but comments that it is not the usual way of doing things
in the organisation. The shift from the organisation (line 8) to the use of the
pronoun we (line 9) which is strategically ambiguous between exclusive
and positively polite inclusive meaning (we wouldn’t usually say something like
this), allows Ruth to suggest that she and Nell are working on this together,
thereby again saving both interlocutors’ faces in a potentially tricky situation.
On this interpretation, mitigation is clearly at the core of this array of strategies.
From an analyst’s perspective, this is normatively feminine talk, characterised
by features which have been described in decades of language and gender
research (e.g. see Tannen 1993, 1994a, 1994b; Crawford 1995; Holmes 1995;
Aries 1996; Coates 1996; Wodak 1997; Talbot 1998; Romaine 1999). In this
section of her interaction with Nell, Ruth is making use of linguistic, pragmatic
and discursive devices which signal considerateness and positive affect,
stances associated with femaleness and feminine identity in New Zealand
society. These are, of course, just some of the available strategies for fulfilling
her role as manager, and in other contexts she draws on more confrontational,
authoritative, and direct strategies to achieve her goals (see, for example,
Holmes and Stubbe 2003b: 49). Example 1 serves, however, to illustrate an
interaction in which a middle-class professional woman performs her manage-
rial role in a way which also constructs a conventionally feminine gender
identity. It also serves as a linguistic instantiation of classic ‘relational practice’
(Fletcher 1999), that is, off-record, other-oriented behaviour which serves to
further workplace goals. In Fletcher’s analysis relational practice is paradigmati-
cally women’s work, and thus a quintessential example of ‘doing femininity’ at
work. In the community of practice in which these women worked, this gender
performance was unremarkable and ‘unmarked’. Being normatively feminine in
this community of practice did not arouse derision, and nor did it require apology.
Importantly, however, the perception of such behaviour as acceptable and
unmarked held true for professional women in many of the white-collar
workplaces in which we recorded. Doing feminine gender using the kinds of
strategies and linguistic devices described above was typically perceived as
unmarked, as simply one component of performing their professional identity
in particular interactions in a very wide range of communities of practice.
Feminine behaviour, in other words, was regarded as normal behaviour in
such contexts, and hence can be re-classified positively rather than derided.
When men ‘do femininity’ at work, however, the perceptions of, and
reactions to, their behaviour are much more complex. For example, in our
data, when men made use of discourse strategies and linguistic devices asso-
ciated with normatively feminine behaviour, the responses varied significantly
on different occasions in different communities of practice. In a relatively
feminine community of practice, the use by a male of linguistic markers of
considerateness and concern for the addressee’s face needs, such as those
identified in Example 1, when used in a similar professional context, occasioned
# The authors 2006
Journal compilation # Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2006
‘DOING FEMININITY’AT WORK 37
In lines 1^4, Smithy reports on what the team agreed Vita should do by this meet-
ing, and in line 5, Vita confirms that she has indeed accomplished the specified
task. Since Clara, the Department manager, makes no immediate response, Smithy
proceeds to‘prime’ Clara to provide positive feedback to Vita (Vita’s done a work plan
just for that implementation, lines 6^7). Clara responds appropriately in line 8 with
a positive and appreciative comment, and Smithy then continues with the next
item. Smithy’s facilitative move is made extremely discreetly, and Clara picks up his
cue without missing a beat. This is a nice example of relational practice ^ subtle,
backgrounded discursive work, attending to collegial relationships and ensuring
that things run smoothly. Relational practice is quintessentially gendered as
‘feminine’ in Fletcher’s (1999) book Disappearing Acts, in which she argues
that relational skills are typically associated with women, and hence Smithy’s
then, the team members imply that Callum has behaved in an unmasculine
way, and mock his conventionally feminine approach.
Example 4 provides another suggestive illustration of the kind of response
elicited by normatively feminine behaviour in a relatively masculine commun-
ity of practice. It is an excerpt from an interaction between members of the
senior management team in Company S, a community of practice similar in
some ways to the IT team described above. Many of the norms for interaction
between the all-male members of this team are stereotypically masculine, with
relational practice expressed through contestive humour, jocular insult, and
extensive competitive teasing (see Schnurr forthcoming). During the period
that we recorded, a new member of the team, Neil, was being inculcated into
the team culture, the normal ‘way we do things around here’ (Bower 1966,
cited in Clouse and Spurgeon 1995: 3), often through teasing and sarcastic
comment on features of his behaviour which were regarded as inappropriate
in the context of the team’s usual ways of interacting. On one occasion, for
instance, he took seriously a negative critical response to his excuse for not
being able to attend a meeting. It was clear from the reactions of others, as
well as the subsequent discourse, that the criticism was intended as jocular.
But Neil misinterpreted Shaun’s tone, and responded in a way that the other
team members clearly regarded as inappropriately fulsome. Our observations
and analyses in this rather masculine community of practice suggest that one
dimension of this inappropriateness was the association of apologetic and
mitigating language with relatively feminine ways of talking.
Example 4
Context: Meeting of the senior management team in middle-sized IT company. Neil
apologises for not being able to attend the first monthly staff meeting to which he has
been invited.
1. Shaun: okay but I think it’s important
2. you do go to the staff meeting
3. and get introduced
4. Neil: yeah . . . . . . . . .
5. er I can’t do it today unfortunately I’ve
6. I’ve already booked in some time
7. with someone else this afternoon
8. but the next one I can come along to yeah
9. Shaun: we’ll think about it
10. Neil: pardon
11. Shaun: we’ll think about it
12. Neil: /[laughs]\
13. Shaun: /we don’t take kindly to\ being rejected
14. Neil: oh I’m sorry I’ve got a yeah got a meeting
15. this afternoon which I can’t get out of
16. if I’d have known I would’ve changed it yeah
17. Shaun: what is our formal position on Neil (5)
Neil needs to be introduced to the wider staff of the organisation (lines 1^3).
The fact that he is not free to attend (lines 5^8) provides an opportunity for
Shaun to tease him for rejecting their invitation (lines 9, 11, 13). Neil does not
recognise that he is being teased, and he responds seriously to Shaun’s com-
ment we don’t take kindly to being rejected (line 13), with an elaboration of his
excuse (lines 14^16). His response is marked by a number of appeasement
devices (e.g. apology, excuse; he even claims he would have changed his
appointment if he had known that he was expected to attend the staff meeting
(line 16)). Shaun does not respond, however, to Neil’s attempt at appeasement;
rather he replies in a very challenging tone with a confrontational, direct
attack on Neil’s status: what is our formal position on Neil (line 17).
Neil’s inappropriately elaborate apology could be regarded as overly conciliatory,
a stance strongly associated with more feminine styles of interaction. It clearly
marks him as an outsider to the team, a team which our ethnographic data
indicates forms a very close-knit community of practice, with a number of
normatively masculine norms of interaction, as mentioned above. Clearly then,
ways of talking which conventionally index femininity can function as unmarked
in some communities of practice, while the same discourse strategies and linguistic
features may be perceived as marked and comment-worthy in others.We turn now
to the discussion of a rather different way in which women may exploit gendered
norms of interaction at work, drawing on the conventional indices of femininity
for particular, and sometimes subversive, purposes.
kitchen renovations, discussing paint and cushions with no sense that they need
to reject such a stereotypically feminine task. Although she holds a powerful
leadership position, Jill enacts her feminine identity with good-humoured
assurance, alongside an intelligent awareness of the dominant societal gender
stereotypes. Thus her use of the term girly office can be interpreted as indicating
her awareness of her male colleagues’gender stereotypes, along with an implicit
contestation and troubling of those views. By unapologetically embracing the
concept of a feminine space at work, and indicating its acceptability, this powerful
woman implies that she sees no contradiction between being statusful and being
feminine in this community of practice.
In another workplace the boss is known as ‘Queen Clara’, and addressed and
referred to by her staff with good-humoured irony as ‘your royal highness’.
Clara, like Jill, is perfectly secure both with her professional and her gender
identity, and draws comfortably on the full panoply of available discourse stra-
tegies, including those conventionally regarded as masculine, to do authority
when appropriate (see, for example, the ‘screendumps’ example in Holmes and
Marra 2002b: 391). Equally, Clara frequently behaves in normatively feminine
ways without any sense that this is inappropriate to her high status in the
organisation.
It is possible that Clara and Jill, as senior women who refuse to conform to
the conventionally masculine norms associated with leadership (Ely 1988;
Hearn and Parkin 1988; Geis, Brown and Wolfe 1990; Maher 1997; Sinclair
1998), are effectively contesting the related widespread expectation that
workplaces (and especially those concerned with technology and IT) should
be regarded as uncompromisingly masculine domains (cf. Tannen 1994b;
Trauth 2002; Kendall 2003), where male patterns of interaction serve as the
unmarked model. Their secure attitude to the performance of their gender
identity in the workplace appears to free up these women to enjoy and exploit
stereotypical, and even hyperbolic ways of ‘doing femininity’. Clara and Jill
seem to revel in semi-facetiously and parodically ‘doing femininity’ in the
more off-record, peripheral aspects of their managerial roles, but they also
draw on both normatively masculine and feminine discourse resources in the
course of their everyday workplace interactions. As women who are secure in
their professional identities, it seems that they do not to need to downplay the
fact that they are female or minimise gender differences in aspects of their
behaviour in order to ensure they are taken seriously.
CONCLUSION
This paper has explored certain aspects of gender performance in the work-
place. We have discussed different femininities or ways of ‘doing femininity’,
and suggested that workplace interaction provides opportunities not only
for indexing normative femininity, a kind of gender performance which
has been associated with ‘relational practice’ (Fletcher 1999), but, also for
parodying, contesting, and troubling gendered workplace expectations and
assumptions.
We have shown that the use of familiar and normative discourse resources
for indexing femininity by both women and men may elicit different responses
in different contexts within different communities of practice. We have
suggested that, especially in relatively feminine communities of practice, such
performances are frequently treated as ‘unmarked behaviours’ (Ochs 1992:
343), not just for women but for either sex. Indeed, in many contexts within
such communities of practice, the ability to discursively index conventional
femininity is regarded as an asset, and skill in adopting a feminine stance is
positively construed. There is no evidence here for the negative conception of
femininity which pervades much of the discussion of this concept. Feminine
behaviour is regarded as normal and assessed positively in many contexts
within such communities of practice.
On the other hand, we identified relatively low tolerance for aspects of
behaviour perceived as normatively feminine in some contexts, and especially
by men engaged in transactional, task-oriented interaction in more masculine
communities of practice. Features which are conventionally associated with
femininity may thus attract negative comment or derision in particular
workplace interactions, within particular workplace cultures. Though often
expressed in covert and implicit ways, such negative reactions could be
regarded as evidence of sexism in such workplaces.
More positively, identifying particular types of behaviour as markedly
feminine, also opens up the possibility for exploitation, and through a kind of
‘double-voicing’, for parody and ironic self-quotation. Language can be used
not only to enact and reinforce conventional gender positioning, the ‘gender
order’, but also to subvert unacceptable socio-cultural norms, and contest
restrictive concepts of professional identity at work. Hence, some senior
women in our data deliberately exploit feminine stereotypes, consciously
parodying conventional notions of how women should behave in the workplace
(cf. Koller 2004).
In conclusion, while professional identity might appear the most obviously
relevant aspect of social identity in workplace interaction, the analysis in
this paper demonstrates that people also discursively manage and interpret
complex gender identities through workplace talk. Moreover, we suggest
that our analysis provides a basis for recasting the concepts ‘feminine’ and
‘femininity’ in a more positive light, reclaiming the potential for women and
men to behave in feminine ways, and make constructive but unremarkable use
of conventionally feminine discourse strategies,‘even’at work.
NOTES
1. The content of this paper was first presented at IGALA 3, the 3rd Biennial
Conference of the International Gender and Language Association held at Cornell
University, June 5^7, 2004. We thank those who attended and contributed to the
discussion which has informed our revision. We thank those who allowed their
workplace interactions to be recorded, and other members of the Language in the
Workplace Project team who assisted with collecting and transcribing the data.We
also thank Meredith Marra and Emily Major for much-appreciated assistance with
editing and preparing this paper for publication. Finally we are indebted to the
editors and the three anonymous reviewers who provided detailed and valuable
feedback which has resulted in a much improved paper.
2. In this the concept of ‘femininity’ contrasts significantly with the concept of
‘masculinity’, which is regarded positively. As Kiesling (2004: 230) points out
‘studying masculinity allows the discussion of idealizations of manhood that no
man may actually fulfill’.
3. Mills (2003:186^188) describes changes in feminist analyses of femininity over the
last decade, and especially the ironisation of femininity which has been the focus
of work by Liladhar (2001). The concept of ironising a ‘feminine’ performance is
explored below. See also Clift (1999).
4. This approach is endorsed by a number of other analysts, for example, West and
Fenstermaker (1995), Mart|¤ n Rojo (1998), Stokoe and Weatherall (2002), Stokoe
and Smithson (2002), Kitzinger (2002).
5. This point is more fully explored in Holmes and Meyerhoff (2003), Holmes and
Stubbe (2003a), and Holmes (in press).
6. This example is discussed in more detail in the context of an analysis of leadership
strategies in Holmes, Schnurr, Chiles and Chan (2003). Tina Chiles, in particular,
contributed to the analysis of this example.
7. See Appendix for transcription conventions.
8. We are not suggesting that indirectness should always be construed positively (or
directness negatively). There are obviously occasions when indirectness can
be unhelpful and counter-productive (see Holmes in press chapter 2). Such
assessments can only be made in context; they require attention to participants’
reactions, and often to the longer-term outcomes of an interaction insofar as
these can be derived from the ethnographic detail collected in workplaces where
we recorded.
9. This example is also discussed in Holmes and Marra (2004: 388), a paper which
focuses on the range of linguistic and discursive strategies which may instantiate
Fletcher’s (1999) concept of ‘relational practice’.
10. See Holmes and Marra (2002a) for a fuller description and exemplification, and
Baxter (2003: 145) for a description of a very similar community of practice in the
British context.
11. This example is used to illustrate a different point in Holmes (2005: 53).
12. Tew (2002: 78ff) discussing the work of Cixous and Kristeva, notes the importance
they attach to identifying elements of ‘‘‘a different voice’’ . . . in the ordinary every-
day discourses of women and other subordinated social groups’, as one means of
starting to disrupt the hegemony of ‘phallocentric codes and rules’ (2002: 81^82).
Parody constitutes one such element.
13. This example is also discussed in Schnurr (forthcoming) and in Holmes and Schnurr
(2005) where it is used to illustrate the way Jill uses humour in the workplace.
14. See Clift (1999: 543) on self-deprecating irony, and also on‘the affiliative qualities of
irony’. See also Johnstone (2003: 204^205) who describes how being southern
and sounding southern as resources for someTexan women, can be used sometimes
‘for very specific fleeting purposes (such as selling a business service to a man who
wants you to flirt)’.
REFERENCES
Aries, Elizabeth. 1996. Men and Women in Interaction. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1984. Problems in Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Minneapolis, Minnesota:
University of Minnesota Press.
Baxter, Judith. 2003. Positioning Gender in Discourse: A Feminist Methodology.
Chippenham, U.K.: Macmillan Palgrave.
Bell, Allan. 1999. Styling the other to define the self: A study in New Zealand identity
making. Journal of Sociolinguistics 3: 523^541.
Bell, Allan. 2001. Back in style: Reworking audience design. In Penelope Eckert and
John R. Rickford (eds.) Style and SociolinguisticVariation. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge
University Press. 139^169.
Bell, Allan and George Major. 2004. ‘Yeah right’: Voicing kiwi masculinity. Paper pre-
sented at the New Zealand Language and Society Conference, Massey University,
Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Bell, David, Jon Binnie, Julia Cream and Gill Valentine. 1994. All hyped up and no place
to go. Gender, Place and Culture 1: 31^47.
Besnier, Niko. 2003. Transgenderism and language use in Tonga. In Janet Holmes and
Miriam Meyerhoff (eds.) Handbook of Language and Gender. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.
279^301.
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness. Some Universals in Language
Usage. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Bucholtz, Mary. 1999.You da man: Narrating the racial other in the production of white
masculinity. Journal of Sociolinguistics 3: 443^460.
Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York:
Routledge.
Cameron, Deborah. 1997. Performing gender identity: Young men’s talk and the con-
struction of heterosexual masculinity. In Sally Johnson and Ulrike Hanna Meinhof
(eds.) Language and Masculinity. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell. 47^65.
Cameron, Deborah. 1998. ‘Is there any ketchup Vera?’: Gender, power and pragmatics.
Discourse and Society 9: 435^455.
Cameron, Deborah and Don Kulick. 2003. Language and Sexuality. Cambridge, U.K.:
Cambridge University Press.
Clift, Rebecca. 1999. Irony in conversation. Language in Society 28: 523^554.
Clouse, R.Wilburn and Karen Spurgeon. 1995. Corporate analysis of humor. Psychology ^
A QuarterlyJournal of Human Behaviour 32: 1^24.
Coates, Jennifer. 1996.Woman Talk. Conversation Between Women Friends. Oxford, U.K.:
Blackwell.
Coates, Jennifer. 1997. Competing discourses of femininity. In Helga Kotthoff and Ruth
Wodak (eds.) Communicating Gender in Context. Amsterdam, The Netherlands and
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: John Benjamins. 285^314.
Coates, Jennifer. 1999. Changing femininities: The talk of teenage girls. In Mary
Bucholtz, A. C. Liang and Laurel A. Sutton (eds.) Reinventing Identities. New York:
Oxford University Press. 123^144.
Coates, Jennifer. 2003. Men Talk. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.
Connell, Robert W. 1987. Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics.
Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Connell, Robert W. 1995. Masculinities. Berkeley, California: University of California
Press.
Crawford, Mary. 1995. Talking Difference. On Gender and Language. London: Sage.
Eckert, Penelope and Sally McConnell-Ginet. 2003. Language and Gender. Cambridge,
U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Eder, Donna. 1993.‘Go get ya a French!’ Romantic and sexual teasing among adolescent
girls. In Deborah Tannen (ed.) Gender and Conversational Interaction. Oxford, U.K.:
Oxford University Press. 17^31.
Edley, Nigel and Margaret Wetherell. 1997. Jockeying for position: The construction
of masculine identities. Discourse and Society 8: 203^217.
Ely, Robin. 1988. Attitudes toward women and the experience of leadership. In Suzanna
Rose and Laurie Larwood (eds.) Women’s Careers. Pathways and Pitfalls. New York:
Praeger. 65^81.
Fletcher, Joyce K. 1999. Disappearing Acts. Gender, Power, and Relational Practice atWork.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Geis, Florence, Virginia Brown and Carolyn Wolfe. 1990. Legitimizing the leader:
Endorsement by male versus female authority figures. Journal of Applied Psychology
20: 943^970.
Hall, Kira. 1995. Lip service on the fantasy lines. In Kira Hall and Mary Bucholtz (eds.)
Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self. New York: Routledge.
183^216.
Hall, Kira. 2003. Exceptional speakers: Contested and problematized gender identities.
In Miriam Meyerhoff and Janet Holmes (eds.) Handbook of Language and Gender.
Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell. 352^380.
Hearn, Jeff and P. Wendy Parkin. 1988. Women, men, and leadership: A critical review
of assumptions, practices, and change in the industrialized nations. In Nancy
Adler and Dafna Izraeli (eds.)Women in ManagementWorldwide. London: M.E. Sharpe.
17^40.
Holmes, Janet. 1995.Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman.
Holmes, Janet. 2000. Women at work: Analysing women’s talk in New Zealand work-
places. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics (ARAL) 22: 1^17.
Holmes, Janet. 2005. Power and discourse at work: Is gender relevant? In Michelle Lazar
(ed.) CDA and Gender. London: Palgrave. 31^60.
Holmes, Janet. In press. Gendered Talk at Work: Constructing Gender Identity Through
Workplace Discourse. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.
Holmes, Janet and Meredith Marra. 2002a. Over the edge? Subversive humour between
colleagues and friends. Humor 15: 1^23.
Holmes, Janet and Meredith Marra. 2002b. Humour as a discursive boundary marker in
social interaction. In Anna Duszak (ed.) Us and Others: Social Identities across Languages,
Discourses and Cultures. Amsterdam,The Netherlands: John Benjamins. 377^400.
Holmes, Janet and Meredith Marra. 2004. Relational practice in the workplace: Women’s
talk or gendered discourse? Language in Society 33: 377^398.
Holmes, Janet and Miriam Meyerhoff. 2003. Different voices, different views: An
introduction to current research in language and gender. In Janet Holmes and Miriam
Meyerhoff (eds.) Handbook of Language and Gender. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell. 1^17.
Holmes, Janet and Stephanie Schnurr. 2005. Politeness, humour and gender in the
workplace: Negotiating norms and identifying contestation. Journal of Politeness
Research 1: 121^149.
Holmes, Janet, Stephanie Schnurr, Tina Chiles and Angela Chan. 2003. The discourse
of leadership. Te Reo 46: 31^46.
Holmes, Janet and Maria Stubbe. 2003a.‘Feminine’ workplaces: Stereotypes and reality.
In Janet Holmes and Miriam Meyerhoff (eds.) Handbook of Language and Gender.
Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell. 573^599.
Holmes, Janet and Maria Stubbe. 2003b. Power and Politeness in the Workplace. A
Sociolinguistic Analysis of Talk atWork. London: Longman.
Holmes, Janet, Maria Stubbe and Bernadette Vine. 1999. Constructing professional
identity: ‘Power’ in policy units. In Srikant Sarangi and Celia Roberts (eds.) Talk,Work
and Institutional Order. Discourse in Medical, Mediation and Management Settings.
Berlin: de Gruyter. 351^385.
Johnson, Sally and Ulrike Hanna Meinhof (eds.). 1997. Language and Masculinity. Oxford,
U.K.: Blackwell.
Johnstone, Barbara. 1999. Uses of Southern-sounding speech by contemporary Texas
women. Journal of Sociolinguistics 3: 505^522.
Johnstone, Barbara. 2003. Features and uses of Southern style. In Stephen J. Nagle and
Sara L. Sanders (eds.) English in the Southern United States. Cambridge, U.K.:
Cambridge University Press. 189^207.
Jones, Deborah. 2000. Gender trouble in the workplace: ‘Language and gender’ meets
‘feminist organisational communication’. In Janet Holmes (ed.) Gendered Speech in
Social Context: Perspectives from Gown and Town. Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria
University Press. 192^210.
Kendall, Shari. 2003. Creating gendered demeanours of authority at work and at home.
In Janet Holmes and Miriam Meyerhoff (eds.) Handbook of Language and Gender.
Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell. 600^623.
Kendall, Shari. 2004. Framing authority: Gender, face and mitigation at a radio network.
Discourse and Society 15: 55^79.
Kiesling, Scott Fabius. 1998. Men’s identities and sociolinguistic variation: The case of
fraternity men. Journal of Sociolinguistics 2: 69^99.
Kiesling, Scott Fabius. 2004. What does a focus on ‘men’s language’ tell us about
language and woman’s place? In Mary Bucholtz (ed.) Language and Woman’s Place:
Text and Commentaries. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. 229^236.
Kitzinger, Celia. 2002. Doing feminist conversational analysis. In Paul McIlvenny
(ed.) Talking Gender and Sexuality. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
163^193.
Koller, Veronika. 2004. Businesswomen and war metaphors: ‘Possessive, jealous and
pugnacious’? Journal of Sociolinguistics 8: 3^22.
Lakoff, Robyn Tolmach. 2004. Language and woman’s place revisited. In Mary Bucholtz
(ed.) Language and Woman’s Place: Text and Commentaries. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford
University Press. 15^28.
Liladhar, Janine. 2001. Making, unmaking and re-making femininity. Unpublished PhD
thesis. Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield Hallam University.
Livia, Anna and Kira Hall (eds.). 1997. Queerly Phrased: Language, Gender, and Sexuality.
NewYork: Oxford University Press.
APPENDIX
yes Underlining indicates emphatic stress
[laughs]:: Paralinguistic features in square brackets, colons indicate
start/finish
þ Pause of up to one second
(3) Pause of specified number of seconds
. . ./. . . . . .\ . . . Simultaneous speech
. . ./. . . . . .\ . . .
(hello) Transcriber’s best guess at an unclear utterance
? Rising or question intonation
- Incomplete or cut-off utterance
... ... Section of transcript omitted
¼ Speaker’s turn continues
[edit] Editorial comments italicized in square brackets
All names used in examples are pseudonyms.