Sporting formulae in New Zealand English: two models of male solidarity

Kuiper, Koenraad

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511611889.014

Cited by 32 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Kuiper 1991;Coates 1997;Kiesling 2001). As mentioned above, there was a higher proportion of humour in the team meetings of this group than in any other work group we recorded.…”

Section: Case Studysupporting

confidence: 50%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Power and Politeness in the Workplace

Holmes¹

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Kuiper 1991;Coates 1997;Kiesling 2001). As mentioned above, there was a higher proportion of humour in the team meetings of this group than in any other work group we recorded.…”

Section: Case Studysupporting

confidence: 50%

“…2. Kuiper (1991) illustrates jocular abuse in a rugby changing room and Holmes (2000d) provides farther discussion of jocular abuse in workplace interaction. Martineau (1972); Ziv (1984); Ervin-Tripp and Lampert (1992); Graham, Papa and Brookes (1992).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Power and Politeness in the Workplace

Holmes¹

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Even for the speakers in this sample, it is possible that they might represent themselves and their emotional responses in contrasting ways if the storytelling had taken place for different reasons and with other audiences, say for instance in an all-male peer group chatting at work or in the pub. As various research has indicated, men in single-sex contexts construct solidarity in a range of alternative ways (Kuiper 1998;Pilkington 1998). Further research taking into account comparative, localized studies is necessary before more definitive conclusions can be reached.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An analysis of APPRAISAL in childbirth narratives with special consideration of gender and storytelling style

Page¹

2003

Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study uses the APPRAISAL framework developed by Martin (1996Martin ( , 2000 to analyze the evaluation offered by women and men when narrating experiences about childbirth. 1 The textual patterns constructed by the speakers' use of attitudinal appraisal are considered in relation to gender in two ways.First, findings suggest that the women and men in this study have subtly differing story-telling styles as indicated by the relative proportion of AFFECT and APPRECIATION found in their narratives. The women's narratives are seen as more personalized and exhibiting a higher degree of potential interpersonal involvement than the men's-features which are understood as connected with the patterns of social interaction between speakers.Second, gender is also important in understanding the speakers' selfcharacterization as expressed through JUDGMENT. Through the comparators (Labov 1972) used here, the speakers depict a particular identity for the prospective father as one who may be peripheral and ineffective-a world view that is mirrored in the representation of the father as a social actor (van Leeuwen 1996) in current childbirth advice literature.The analysis of APPRAISAL in these narratives supports recent trends in the study of language and gender that suggest there is no universal mapping between gender and linguistic form. Rather, like the evaluation used here, gender itself is seen as culturally constructed and related to contextual issues in a complex and multiple manner.

show abstract

“…Verbal competition and (playful) insults have often been associated with men's talk or masculine ways of signalling solidarity (Labov 1972;Kuiper 1998;Evaldson 2005;Schwegler 2007). However, in recent decades there has been some evidence to suggest that playful insults and verbal competition are not restricted to the realm of young (Black) men.…”

Section: 1) Playful Insultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘You are stupid, you are cupid’

Pichler

2017

Gender and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Whereas language and gender studies' explorations of couples' talk have tended to focus on collaborative vs competitive conversational style, social psychological work on couples' intimate relationships has long been driven by an interest in expressions of affection. This paper aims to show that linguistic discourse analysis can make a significant contribution to our understanding of how affection is expressed in intimate relationships. The paper focuses on the playful switching of frames, voices, codes and personas which emerges as central to the affectionate practice in the spontaneous talk of a young multi-cultural London couple. It argues that quantitative interview studies based on an a-priori understanding of affection are unable to capture many of the idiosyncratic and creative ways in which speakers express their affection for one another in their intimate talk. 1) IntroductionThis paper aims to make a contribution to research on the talk of heterosexual couples in intimate relationships, an area which has not received much attention in language and gender studies in the last 2-3 decades. The self-recorded talk of the young couple I will explore in this paper has redirected my focus from conversational dominance and difference, topics which were at the centre of previous language and gender research on couples' talk, towards an exploration of expressions of affection. At the same time as offering a fresh perspective to the long tradition of language and gender studies of couples' talk, this paper will demonstrate the contribution that a discourse analytic approach based on frame analysis (Goffman 1974, Tannen 1993) is able to make to the study of affection in intimate relationships, an area of research that has been dominated by scholarship in social psychology. The paper will focus on the playful switching of voices and personas that emerges as a central resource for the expression of affection in the spontaneous talk of a young multi-cultural couple, arguing that research exploring affection on the basis of predetermined behaviours or locutions (such as 'I love you') does not encourage exploration of more idiosyncratic and indirect ways in which intimate partners express their affection for one another.The pioneering work of Pamela Fishman (1980), Victoria DeFrancisco (1991 and Deborah Tannen (1990) investigated the interaction of women and men in intimate relationships. The argument that women and men's conversational style differs and can be the cause of miscommunication in couples' talk was of course most prominently promoted in Deborah Tannen (1990) book You just don't understand. The book had a vast non-academic readership but was vigorously critiqued by language and gender scholars for its reliance on anecdotal

show abstract

Sporting formulae in New Zealand English: two models of male solidarity

Cited by 32 publications

References 0 publications

Power and Politeness in the Workplace

Power and Politeness in the Workplace

An analysis of APPRAISAL in childbirth narratives with special consideration of gender and storytelling style

‘You are stupid, you are cupid’

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About