The Interface Between Language and Cultural Conceptualisations of Gender in Interaction: The Case of Greek

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Cultural Linguistics book series (CL)

Abstract

The aim of the chapter is to examine the relation between language and cultural conceptualisations of gender in Greek conversation. Gender is a cultural category that is indexed referentially via grammatical and lexical gender in Greek. The study examines two cultural schemas associated with the use of gendered terms in Greek conversation, (i) man as norm and (ii) heteronormativity, by drawing on the framework of Cultural Linguistics, and integrating perspectives from research on language and gender, and conversation analysis. The analysis demonstrates that the above cultural schemas are associated with speakers’ covert assumptions about the social gender order, which are routinely displayed in the course of various social actions in Greek conversation. These assumptions are uncovered in cases of repair of grammatical gender and gendered noticing, and cultural conceptualisations of gender are brought to the surface of the talk. Cultural cognition is shown to be a socially situated phenomenon, embedded in social action that can be examined empirically in interaction.

Keywords

Gender Cultural conceptualisations Cultural schemas Inference Greek conversation Repair Noticing 

Abbreviations

1

First person

2

Second person

3

Third person

ACC

Accusative

CONJ

Conjunction

COP

Copula

F

Feminine

FUT

Future

GEN

Genitive

IMPER

Imperfect

M

Masculine

NEG

Negation

NEUT

Neuter

NOM

Nominative

PART

Particle

PFV

Perfective

PL

Plural

PREP

Preposition

PRS

Present

PST

Past

SBJV

Subjunctive

SG

Singular

VOC

Vocative

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

References

  1. Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2000). Classifiers: A typology of noun categorization devices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alvanoudi, A. (2014). Grammatical gender in interaction: Cultural and cognitive aspects. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  3. Alvanoudi, A. (2015). The routine achievement of gender in Greek conversation. Gender and Language, 9(1), 11–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Auer, P. (1995). The pragmatics of code-switching: A sequential approach. In L. Milroy & P. Muysken (Eds.), One speaker, two languages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on code-switching (pp. 115–135). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braidotti, R. (1994). Nomadic subjects: Embodiment and sexual difference in contemporary feminist theory. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Braidotti, R. (2000). The relevance of gender for the issue of ‘women and science’. In R. Braidotti & E. Vonk (Eds.), The making of European women’s studies: A work in progress report on curriculum development and related issues (Vol. I, pp. 187–201). Utrecht: Athena/Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  7. Braidotti, R. (2002). Metamorphoses: Towards a materialist theory of becoming. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 584–614.Google Scholar
  9. Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of sex. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Butler, J. (1999). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and topic pursuit. Human Studies, 8, 3–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Corbett, G. (1991). Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dixon, R. M. W. (2010). Basic linguistic theory (Vol. I). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Drew, P., Traci, W., & Richard, O. (2013). Self-repair and action construction. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding (pp. 71–94). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Enfield, N. J. (2013). Relationship thinking: Agency, enchrony, and human sociality. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Engelberg, Μ. (2002). The communication of gender in Finnish. In M. Hellinger & H. Bussmann (Eds.), Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men (pp. 109–132). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frank, R. (2015). A future agenda for research on language and culture. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp. 493–512). New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  20. Goodwin, C., & Duranti, A. (1992). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Haraway, D. (1991). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature (pp. 183–201). London: Free Association Books.Google Scholar
  22. Hellinger, M., & Bussmann, H. (2001). Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men. In M. Hellinger & H. Bussmann (Eds.), Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men (pp. 1–25). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  23. Hellinger, M., & Bussmann, H. (Eds.). (2001–2002–2003). Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  24. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  25. Heritage, J., & Atkinson, M. J. (1984). Introduction. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 1–15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Ηeritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 15–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hopper, R., & LeBaron, C. (1998). How gender creeps into talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 31(1), 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kitzinger, C. (2005). Speaking as a heterosexual: (How) does sexuality matter for talk-in-interaction? Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(3), 221–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kitzinger, C. (2012). Repair. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 229–256). Boston: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman’s place. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  31. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern (C. Porter, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lerner, G. H. (1992). Assisted story telling: Deploying shared knowledge as a practical matter. Qualitative Sociology, 15(3), 247–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Levinson, S. C. (2006). Cognition at the heart of human interaction. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McConnell-Ginet, S. (2003). What’s in a name? Social labeling and gender practices. In J. Holmes & M. Meyerhoff (Eds.), The handbook of language and gender (pp. 69–97). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ochs, E. (1992). Indexing gender. In C. Goodwin & A. Duranti (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 335–358). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Palmer, G. B. (1996). Toward a theory of cultural linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  38. Pavlidou, T. (2003). Women, gender and Modern Greek. In M. Hellinger & H. Bussmann (Eds.), Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men (pp. 175–199). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pavlidou, T. (2015). Gendering selves, gendering others—In (Greek) interaction. Gender and Language, 9(1), 105–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pavlidou, T., Alvanoudi, A., & Karafoti, E. (2004). Grammatical gender and semantic content: Preliminary remarks on the lexical representation of social gender. Studies in Greek Linguistics, 24, 543–553 (in Greek).Google Scholar
  41. Pavlidou, T., & Karafoti, E. (2016). The freestanding interrogative γιατί (‘why’) and its functions in Greek talk-in-interaction. In T. Pavlidou (Ed.), Greek language and oral communication (pp. 81–97). Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies (in Greek).Google Scholar
  42. Raymond, G., & Heritage, J. (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society, 35(5), 677–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rich, A. (1980). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Signs, 5(4), 631–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rubin, G. (1975). The traffic in women: Notes on the “political economy” of sex. In R. R. Reiter (Ed.), Toward an anthropology of women (pp. 157–210). New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  45. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schegloff, E. A. (1996a). Issues of relevance for discourse analysis: Contingency in action, interaction and co-participant context. In E. H. Hovy & D. R. Scott (Eds.), Computational and conversational discourse: Burning issues—An interdisciplinary account (pp. 3–38). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schegloff, E. A. (1996b). Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics. In B. A. Fox (Ed.), Studies in anaphora (pp. 437–485). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Whose text? Whose context? Discourse and Society, 8(2), 165–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schegloff, E. A. (2013). Ten operations in self-initiated same-turn repair. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding (pp. 41–70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Sharifian, F. (2011). Cultural conceptualisations and language: Theoretical framework and applications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sharifian, F. (2015). Cultural linguistics. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp. 473–492). New York, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  54. Slobin, D. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Slobin, D. I. (2003). Language and thought online: Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in the mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 157–191). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  56. Speer, S. A., & Stokoe, E. (Eds.). (2011). Conversation and gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Spender, D. (1980). Man made language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Adjunct Lecturer in LinguisticsJames Cook UniversityCairnsAustralia

Personalised recommendations