Pamela Fishman conducted an experiment and involved listening to fifty-two hours of prerecorded conversations held by three heterogeneous couples. Five out of the six subjects were attending graduate school; all subjects were either feminists or sympathetic to the women's movement, were white, between the ages of twenty-five and thirty-five. Fishman listened to recordings and concentrated on two characteristics common in women's dialect, including question asking and the use of ''you know.''
Fishman begins by examining the use of question asking, and states that women frequently use tag questions -- 'isn't it?' or 'couldn't we?' --following a thought or suggestion. For females questions are an effective method of beginning and maintaining conversations with males. Fishman argues that women use questions to gain conversational power rather than from lack of conversational awareness. She claims that questioning is required for females when speaking with males; men often do not respond to a declarative statement or will only respond minimally.
Fishman also analyzes the frequent
use of the phrase ''you know'' used by women. ''You know'' is
an attention-getting device to discover if the conversational
partner is listening. When ''you know'' is combined with a pause,
she realized that the woman is inviting the listener to respond.
When little or no response is heard from the male the pause is
internalized by the speaker and she will continue the conversation.
Fishman concludes that women's style of communicating is not from
lack of social training, but to the inferior social position of
women.
Fishman supplies a number of related statistics to the study. Proof women use more questions in conversations is true if one looks at the statistics. Fishman found from twelve and a half hours of conversation that 370 questions were asked between the couples; 263 of the questions contributed by women. Eighty-seven, or one-third of the total questions asked by women were tag questions, the other questions being requests for information or clarification. Evidence was shown that women in the study said ''you know'' five times more often than the men; eighty-seven counted were by women compared to seventeen "you knows" quoted by men. The information seems convincing when determining if the study can be relied upon, however the reader should not be persuaded that the study is completely accurate. If the reader refers back to the subjects chosen one may become skeptical of the evidence given. Three couples were used in the experiment and were homogeneous in beliefs, age, and social rank. The study would be more convincing if there were more conversational techniques examined, and the subjects were chosen randomly.
The essay provides thought
provoking ideas. To be successful in interacting with others,
a person needs to be effective and efficient in communicating.
Fishman gives information to the reasons women are, at times,
incompetent speakers. Generally, women are incapable of communicating
with men due to males lack of contribution to conversations. She
states that the women's style of discussion is related to inferior
social position rather than to lack of social training. Fishman
assumes, then, that men would feel intimidated when speaking to
a superior and unconsciously begin to use a woman's conversational
tone. Similarly, if males have difficulty communicating with females,
men will turn to the woman's conversational techniques. She concludes
that communication skills cannot be classified as a 'personality'
or gender issue, but instead as a hierarchial issue.
©Angela Harlow, Winona (MN) State University, 30 January 1997. This document may be freely distributed for educational use as long as this notice of its authorship accompanies its distribution.
Return to annotated bibliography on language, gender, and writing.