Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 33–48 | Cite as

Gender Differences in the Media Interviews of Bill and Hillary Clinton

Original Article

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.

Keywords

Television interviews Perspective Gender differences 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alber J., O’Connell D.C., Kowal S. (2002). Personal perspective in TV interviews. Pragmatics 12: 257–271Google Scholar
  2. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (trans. C. Emerson & M. Holquist; Holquist M. (Ed.)). Austin, TX: Texas University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bourdieu P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, Polity PressGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourdieu P. (1998). On Television. New York, New PressGoogle Scholar
  5. de Beauvoir S. (1952/1989). The second sex. New York, Vintage BooksGoogle Scholar
  6. Butler J. (1990). Gender trouble. London, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Cameron D. (1985). Feminism and linguistic theory. New York, St. Martin’s PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Cameron D. (1995). Verbal hygiene. London, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Cameron D. (1997). Theoretical debates in feminist linguistics: Questions of sex and gender. In: Wodak R. (ed). Gender and discourse. London, Sage Publications, pp. 20–26Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. Chouliaraki L., Fairclough N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Clinton B. (2004). My life. New York, Random HouseGoogle Scholar
  13. Clinton H. (2003). Living history. New York, Simon and SchusterGoogle Scholar
  14. Coates J. (2003). Men talk. Oxford, BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  15. Cohen A. (1987). The television news interview. Newbury Park, CA, Sage PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  16. Eckert P., McConnell-Ginet S. (2003). Language and gender. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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. 253–268Google Scholar
  18. 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. 169–182Google Scholar
  19. Giddens A. (1991). Modernity and self identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford, CA, Stanford University PressGoogle Scholar
  20. Goffman E. (1977). The arrangement between the sexes. Theory and Society 4: 301–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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. 1–14Google Scholar
  22. Hall K. (2004). Language and marginalized places. In: Bucholtz M. (ed). Language and women’s place: Text and commentaries. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 171–178Google Scholar
  23. Hall S. (2000). Who needs identity?. In: du Gay P., Evans J., Redman P. (eds). Identity: A reader. London, Sage Publications, pp. 15–30Google Scholar
  24. Holmes J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. London, LongmanGoogle Scholar
  25. Holmes J. (2005). Power and discourse at work: Is gender relevant?. In: Lazar M. (ed). Feminist critical discourse analysis. New York, Macmillan, pp. 31–60Google Scholar
  26. Husserl E. (1960). Cartesian meditations (trans. D.Cairns). The Hague, M. NijhoffGoogle Scholar
  27. 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. 231–280Google Scholar
  28. James W. (1891/1981). The principles of psychology. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  29. Kelly C.T. (2001). The rhetoric of first lady Hillary Clinton: Crisis management discourse. Westport, CT, PraegerGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. Koppel T. (2006). And now, a word for our demographic. The New York Times, 16WK.Google Scholar
  32. Labov W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania PressGoogle Scholar
  33. 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. 38–120Google Scholar
  34. Lakoff R. (1990). Talking power: The politics of language in our lives. New York, Basic BooksGoogle Scholar
  35. Linell P. (1998). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
  36. Maltz D., Borker R. (1998). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In: Coates J. (ed). Language and gender. Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 417–434Google Scholar
  37. Moi T. (1999). What is a woman? And other essays. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  38. O’Connell D.C., Kowal S. (1998). Orality and literacy in public discourse: An interview of Hannah Arendt. Journal of Pragmatics 30: 543–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. O’Connell D.C., Kowal S. (2004). Hillary Clinton’s laughter in media interviews. Pragmatics 14: 463–478Google Scholar
  40. O’Connell D.C., Kowal S. (2005). Laughter in Bill Clinton’s My Life (2004) interviews. Pragmatics 15: 275–299Google Scholar
  41. O’Connell D.C., Kowal S., Dill E. (2004). Dialogicality in TV news interviews. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 185–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rathzel N. (1997). Gender and racism in discourse. In: Wodak R. (ed). Gender and discourse. London, Sage Publications, pp. 57–80Google Scholar
  43. Schegloff E. (1992). In another context. In: Duranti A., Goodwin C. (eds). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 191–228Google Scholar
  44. Stokoe E., Smithson J. (2001). Making gender relevant: Conversation analysis and gender categories in interaction. Discourse and Society 12: 217–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Suleiman C., O’Connell D.C. (2003). Perspective in the discourse of war: The case of Colin Powell. Pragmatics 13: 401–422Google Scholar
  46. Suleiman, C., & O’Connell, D. C. (in press). Bill Clinton on the Middle East: Perspective in media interviews. Studies in Language & Capitalism.Google Scholar
  47. Suleiman, C., & O’Connell, D. C. (unpublished manuscript). Marketization versus cultural capital in the discourse of Hillary Clinton.Google Scholar
  48. 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: 281–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tannen D. (1990). You just don’t understand. New York, William Morrow and CompanyGoogle Scholar
  50. 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. 165–188Google Scholar
  51. Tannen D. (1994). Talking from 9 to 5. New York, William Morrow and CompanyGoogle Scholar
  52. 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. 261–279Google Scholar
  53. Tannen D. (1998b). Talk in the intimate relationship. In: Coates J. (ed). Language and gender. Oxford, Blackwell , pp. 435–445Google Scholar
  54. 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. 158–164Google Scholar
  55. Wardhaugh R. (2002). An introduction to sociolinguistics (4th ed.). Oxford, BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  56. 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. 119–143Google Scholar
  57. Wetherell M., Potter J. (1992). Mapping the language of racism. New York, Columbia University PressGoogle Scholar
  58. Wilson J. (1990). Politically speaking. Oxford, BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  59. Wodak R. (1996). Disorders of discourse. London, LongmanGoogle Scholar
  60. 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. 1–20Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Florida International UniversityMiamiUSA
  2. 2.Georgetown UniversityWahingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations