Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) state that although interaction is co-operative, a person’s face can be unintentionally attacked through face-threatening acts (FTAs). Culpeper (1996) disagrees,...Show moreBrown and Levinson (1978, 1987) state that although interaction is co-operative, a person’s face can be unintentionally attacked through face-threatening acts (FTAs). Culpeper (1996) disagrees, stating that people can also intentionally attack someone’s face, and devised “impoliteness superstrategies” (pp. 356-357) that are used for this purpose. However, little research has been done on intentional impoliteness, and even less on gender and intentional impoliteness. Therefore, the research question is: do men and women use different face-threatening acts, and do they respond to these FTAs differently? I aimed to analyse adult men and women’s language, behaviour and paralinguistic features on FTAs and their responses to FTAs, focusing on the differences. This was done through analysis of a total of ten forty-minute episodes from three different reality television series: Can’t Pay? We’ll Take It Away! (n.a., 2014-2018), Supernanny (Frost, 2004-2008) and Jo Frost: Extreme Parental Guidance (Frost, 2010-2012), using a schedule based on the FTAs and impoliteness superstrategies by Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987), Culpeper (1996) and Bousfield (2008), respectively. The responses to FTAs were also recorded. Men and women seemed to use similar FTAs. However, the context in which the FTAs were spoken seemed to affect who was expressing which FTAs. A total of twelve different response types were recorded. These results can be used in different contexts (i.e. language teaching) to predict what kind of FTAs might be present in which contexts. They may also be used to add to both politeness and impoliteness theory.Show less
This thesis studies the current differences in lexical choice in male and female speech in Dutch in order to find out which Dutch language features are indicative of the gender of a speaker and...Show moreThis thesis studies the current differences in lexical choice in male and female speech in Dutch in order to find out which Dutch language features are indicative of the gender of a speaker and which Dutch language features laypersons associate with a certain gender. While the field of language variation due to gender has increased in popularity, there is still little research available about the differences between male and female speech in languages other than English. This thesis was written in order to add to this currently underrepresented subject within the field of language variation due to gender. Furthermore, this thesis also focuses on the subject of lexicality, which is a subject that is often overlooked in favour of other parts of language variation, such as the variation in the use of certain language acts, the variation in voice and the frequency of interruptions. Social indexicality and previous studies about the differences between male and female speech are discussed in this thesis, before the methodology is explained. The data used in this thesis consist of fifty transcribed conversations from Dutch television programmes such as Van de Kaart, and these data were scrutinized for the presence of various gendered language features, such as the use of negation or locatives. Furthermore, twenty-five participants were asked to read three transcriptions and to indicate what they thought the gender of the speaker was. While the data showed that all analysed language features are used by both men and women, there is often a difference in the frequency of use, which means the feature is either feminine or masculine. For example, the use of negation is more frequent in female speech, while men use more quantities. Laypersons, on the other hand, determined the gender of speakers both through contextual clues and the lexical choices made by the speakers.Show less
