Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gender Differences in the Media Interviews of Bill and Hillary Clinton

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Does gender make a difference in the way politicians speak and are spoken to in public? This paper examines perspective in three television interviews and two radio interviews with Bill Clinton in June 2004 and in three television interviews and two radio interviews with Hillary Clinton in June 2003 with the same interviewers. Our perspectival approach assumes that each utterance has a dialogically constructed point of view. Earlier research has shown that markers of conceptual orality and literacy as well as referencing (name and pronoun use for self and other reference) do reflect perspective. This paper asks whether perspective is gendered. Our data analysis demonstrates that some markers of perspective show gender differences while others do not. Those that do include the number of syllables spoken by each interlocutor, referencing, the use of the intensifier so, the use of the hedge you know, the use of non-standard pronunciations, turn transitions, and lastly the use of laughter.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alber J., O’Connell D.C., Kowal S. (2002). Personal perspective in TV interviews. Pragmatics 12: 257–271

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (trans. C. Emerson & M. Holquist; Holquist M. (Ed.)). Austin, TX: Texas University Press.

  • Bourdieu P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, Polity Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu P. (1998). On Television. New York, New Press

    Google Scholar 

  • de Beauvoir S. (1952/1989). The second sex. New York, Vintage Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler J. (1990). Gender trouble. London, Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron D. (1985). Feminism and linguistic theory. New York, St. Martin’s Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron D. (1995). Verbal hygiene. London, Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron D. (1997). Theoretical debates in feminist linguistics: Questions of sex and gender. In: Wodak R. (ed). Gender and discourse. London, Sage Publications, pp. 20–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, D. (1998). Performing gender identity: Young men’s talk and the construction of heterosexual identity. In J. Coates (Ed.), Language and gender: A reader. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Chouliaraki L., Fairclough N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Clinton B. (2004). My life. New York, Random House

    Google Scholar 

  • Clinton H. (2003). Living history. New York, Simon and Schuster

    Google Scholar 

  • Coates J. (2003). Men talk. Oxford, Blackwell

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen A. (1987). The television news interview. Newbury Park, CA, Sage Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckert P., McConnell-Ginet S. (2003). Language and gender. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough N. (1994). Conversationalization of the public discourse and the authority of the consumer. In: Keat R., Whiteley N., Abercrombie N. (eds). The authority of the consumer. London, Routledge, pp. 253–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Gal S. (1995). Language, gender and power: An anthropological review. In: Hall K., Bucholtz M. (eds). Gender articulated: Language and the socially constructed self. London, Routledge, pp. 169–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens A. (1991). Modernity and self identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman E. (1977). The arrangement between the sexes. Theory and Society 4: 301–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graumann C., Kallmeyer W. (2002). Perspective and perspectivation in discourse: An introduction. In: Graumann C., Kallmeyer W. (eds). Perspective and perspectivation in discourse. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall K. (2004). Language and marginalized places. In: Bucholtz M. (ed). Language and women’s place: Text and commentaries. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 171–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall S. (2000). Who needs identity?. In: du Gay P., Evans J., Redman P. (eds). Identity: A reader. London, Sage Publications, pp. 15–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. London, Longman

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes J. (2005). Power and discourse at work: Is gender relevant?. In: Lazar M. (ed). Feminist critical discourse analysis. New York, Macmillan, pp. 31–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Husserl E. (1960). Cartesian meditations (trans. D.Cairns). The Hague, M. Nijhoff

    Google Scholar 

  • James D., Clarke S. (1993). Women, men and interruptions: A critical review. In: Tannen D. (ed). Gender and conversational interaction. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 231–280

    Google Scholar 

  • James W. (1891/1981). The principles of psychology. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly C.T. (2001). The rhetoric of first lady Hillary Clinton: Crisis management discourse. Westport, CT, Praeger

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch, P., & Oesterreicher, W. (1994). Schriftlichkeit und Sprache. In G. Günther & L. Otto (Eds.), Schrift und Schriftlichkeit. Writing and its use. Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch internationaler Forschung. An interdisciplinary handbook of international research (1. Halbband/Vol. 1, pp. 587–604). Berlin: de Gruyter.

  • Koppel T. (2006). And now, a word for our demographic. The New York Times, 16WK.

  • Labov W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff R. (1975/2004). Language and women’s place. In: Bucholtz M. (ed). Language and women’s place: Text and commentaries. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 38–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff R. (1990). Talking power: The politics of language in our lives. New York, Basic Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Linell P. (1998). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins

    Google Scholar 

  • Maltz D., Borker R. (1998). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In: Coates J. (ed). Language and gender. Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 417–434

    Google Scholar 

  • Moi T. (1999). What is a woman? And other essays. Oxford, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell D.C., Kowal S. (1998). Orality and literacy in public discourse: An interview of Hannah Arendt. Journal of Pragmatics 30: 543–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell D.C., Kowal S. (2004). Hillary Clinton’s laughter in media interviews. Pragmatics 14: 463–478

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell D.C., Kowal S. (2005). Laughter in Bill Clinton’s My Life (2004) interviews. Pragmatics 15: 275–299

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell D.C., Kowal S., Dill E. (2004). Dialogicality in TV news interviews. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 185–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rathzel N. (1997). Gender and racism in discourse. In: Wodak R. (ed). Gender and discourse. London, Sage Publications, pp. 57–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff E. (1992). In another context. In: Duranti A., Goodwin C. (eds). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 191–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokoe E., Smithson J. (2001). Making gender relevant: Conversation analysis and gender categories in interaction. Discourse and Society 12: 217–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suleiman C., O’Connell D.C. (2003). Perspective in the discourse of war: The case of Colin Powell. Pragmatics 13: 401–422

    Google Scholar 

  • Suleiman, C., & O’Connell, D. C. (in press). Bill Clinton on the Middle East: Perspective in media interviews. Studies in Language & Capitalism.

  • Suleiman, C., & O’Connell, D. C. (unpublished manuscript). Marketization versus cultural capital in the discourse of Hillary Clinton.

  • Suleiman C., O’Connell D.C., Kowal S. (2002). ‘If you and I, if we, in this later day, lose that sacred fire...’: Perspective in political interviews. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 31: 281–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tannen D. (1990). You just don’t understand. New York, William Morrow and Company

    Google Scholar 

  • Tannen D. (1993). The relativity of linguistic strategies: Rethinking power and solidarity in gender and dominance. In: Tannen D. (ed). Gender and conversational interaction. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 165–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Tannen D. (1994). Talking from 9 to 5. New York, William Morrow and Company

    Google Scholar 

  • Tannen D. (1998a). The relativity of linguistic strategies: Rethinking power and solidarity in gender and dominance. In: Cameron D. (ed). The feminist critique of language. London, Routledge, pp. 261–279

    Google Scholar 

  • Tannen D. (1998b). Talk in the intimate relationship. In: Coates J. (ed). Language and gender. Oxford, Blackwell , pp. 435–445

    Google Scholar 

  • Tannen D. (2004). Cultural patterning in language and women’s place. In: Bucholtz M. (ed). Language and women’s place: Text and commentaries. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 158–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Wardhaugh R. (2002). An introduction to sociolinguistics (4th ed.). Oxford, Blackwell

    Google Scholar 

  • West C., Lazar M., Kramerae C. (1997). Gender in discourse. In: Van Dijk T. (ed). Discourse as social interaction. Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (Vol. 2). London, Sage, pp. 119–143

    Google Scholar 

  • Wetherell M., Potter J. (1992). Mapping the language of racism. New York, Columbia University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson J. (1990). Politically speaking. Oxford, Blackwell

    Google Scholar 

  • Wodak R. (1996). Disorders of discourse. London, Longman

    Google Scholar 

  • Wodak R. (1997). Introduction: Some important issues in the research of gender and discourse. In: Wodak R. (ed). Gender and discourse. London, Sage Publications, pp. 1–20

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA

    Camelia Suleiman

  2. Georgetown University, Wahington, DC, USA

    Daniel C. O’Connell

Authors
  1. Camelia Suleiman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel C. O’Connell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Camelia Suleiman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Suleiman, C., O’Connell, D.C. Gender Differences in the Media Interviews of Bill and Hillary Clinton. J Psycholinguist Res 37, 33–48 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-007-9055-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-007-9055-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation