Men and women do not only look different, they literally are different from scratch (Gates: 2008). But does this difference also apply to language and talk? 'Women talk more than men!’ – Everybody has already heard of the myth that women are more talkative and use 20,000 words a day, whereas men get by with just 7,000 (Talbot: 2003). However, this has been contradicted by the University of Texas – there is no gender that is more talkative. Moreover, according to the studies, women speak on average 16,215 words and men 15,669 words a day (Mehl et al.: 2007). Language starts in people’s heads, but since the areas and sizes of the different brain parts in women’s and men’s heads are completely unequal it nevertheless is logical that male and female language differs. A female brain has its own relatively big ‘Gossip Lobe’, whereas the male brain has only got a somewhat smaller ‘Guy Talk’ area (see Fig. 1).
According to the amount of research that has been conducted in this field there are major differences between male and female language. Tabloid newspapers and talk shows tend to suggest that women swear less than men or that women are the more gossipy gender. These assumptions are internalised by the vast majority of the population, but are they really true (Coates: 2004)? Or is all that nonsense? The German publishing group Langenscheidt published a dictionary with the title 'German–Woman / Woman–German’ which has especially been created for men so that they can interpret women’s messages correctly. This again shows that male and female language varies.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Theoretical Background: Female Talk vs. Male Talk
2.1 Deficit Approach
2.2 Dominance Approach
2.3 Difference Approach or Two Cultures Theory
2.4 Dynamic, Social Constructionist or After Difference Approach
3 Pragmatic Analysis of Female and Male Presenters of Political Podium Discussions
4 Conclusion
Objectives and Research Themes
This work aims to investigate potential gender-specific language differences in the hosting styles of German political talk shows by conducting a pragmatic analysis comparing Maybrit Illner and Frank Plasberg. The study seeks to determine whether established sociolinguistic theories regarding gendered speech are reflected in the professional communication strategies of these presenters.
- Theoretical evaluation of gender and language paradigms (Deficit, Dominance, Difference, and Social Constructionist approaches).
- Pragmatic analysis of presenter behavior across three dimensions: Activity, Critique, and Substance.
- Examination of turn-taking patterns, interruption behavior, and questioning styles in political discourse.
- Evaluation of how professional context and media requirements influence gender-typical speech patterns.
Excerpt from the Book
2.1 Deficit Approach
A systematic discussion about the context of gender and speech behaviour started in American linguistics in the mid 70's. In 1973, it was Robin Lakoff who firstly “introduced the term ‘women's language’ in” an article called ‘Language in Society’, which later became the title of a chapter in her 1978 published book. Two years after she had introduced the term she published her book ‘Language and Woman’s Place’ which is still an extremely influential work on gender and language (Crawford: 1995). Originally, gender-specific differences have been described from a male perspective, whereupon the male speech behaviour was seen as the norm. The most famous exponent is the British linguist Jespersen, who, in 1925 characterised the English language as absolutely masculine, as the language of grown-up men, which does not contain anything childish or feminine. This traditional idea argued that the term ‘male language’ and ‘language’ are congruent and that therefore speech features of female speakers differ in every way (Peters: 1999). According to Claudia Schmidt (1988) women's syntactic form of speech, is more primitive than the male one. Moreover, female speech is lacking, their trains of thoughts are incomplete and glibness belongs to the general traits of women. Schmidt explains this as follows: Women's eloquence is being brought forward because their vocabulary is smaller and closer to the centre of the language.
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: This chapter introduces the research topic, contextualizes the myth of gendered language, and outlines the motivation for a pragmatic analysis of political talk show hosts.
2 Theoretical Background: Female Talk vs. Male Talk: This section reviews core sociolinguistic theories, specifically the Deficit, Dominance, Difference, and Social Constructionist approaches to gender and language.
3 Pragmatic Analysis of Female and Male Presenters of Political Podium Discussions: This chapter provides the empirical core of the study, detailing the methodology for comparing Maybrit Illner and Frank Plasberg based on activity, critique, and substance dimensions.
4 Conclusion: The final chapter summarizes the research findings, acknowledges limitations regarding generalizability, and suggests paths for further scientific inquiry.
Keywords
Gender-specific language, Pragmatics, Political talk shows, Maybrit Illner, Frank Plasberg, Deficit Approach, Dominance Approach, Difference Approach, Social Constructionism, Discourse analysis, Communication behavior, Sociolinguistics, Media discourse, Turn-taking, Questioning styles.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper examines gender-specific language in the context of political talk show moderation, specifically comparing the pragmatic communication styles of Maybrit Illner and Frank Plasberg.
Which central theoretical frameworks are utilized?
The study relies on four key sociolinguistic frameworks: the Deficit Approach, the Dominance Approach, the Difference Approach, and the Dynamic/Social Constructionist Approach.
What is the primary goal of this analysis?
The goal is to determine if historical linguistic stereotypes regarding female and male speech are observable in the professional environment of German political talk shows.
Which methodology is employed in the study?
A pragmatic analysis is performed, operationalizing data into three dimensions: Activity (turn-taking and negotiation), Critique (journalistic questioning), and Substance (background information and personalization).
What specific aspects are covered in the main section?
The main section covers the qualitative and quantitative analysis of talk show sequences, comparing parameters like duration of turns, interruption frequency, questioning techniques, and the use of affirmation words.
Which keywords characterize this work?
Key terms include Sociolinguistics, Pragmatics, Gender-specific language, Political talk shows, and Discourse analysis.
How does the presenter's gender influence the use of 'affirmation words'?
The study finds that Maybrit Illner makes frequent use of affirmation signals like 'mhm' and 'ja', which aligns with the theoretical notion that women may use these signals to maintain conversational flow and reduce distance.
Do the findings support the theory that men speak more and hold more power in discourse?
The findings are nuanced; while traditional theories suggest men dominate, the analysis shows that Maybrit Illner actually talks more in terms of percentage share than Frank Plasberg, suggesting that the programme format and professional context play significant roles.
What impact does the 'Deficit Approach' have on the analysis?
The Deficit Approach serves as a historical point of reference to understand how female speech was previously classified as inferior or 'lacking' compared to a male-defined norm, which the author subsequently critiques.
What are the main limitations identified in the conclusion?
The main limitations are the small number of talk shows analyzed and the potential influence of different broadcasting formats on the presenters' styles, suggesting that results cannot be broadly generalized without further research.
- Arbeit zitieren
- B.A. Corinna Colette Vellnagel (Autor:in), 2011, Gender-specific Language in the Presentation of Political Talk Shows , München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/174789
