1

If you’re “heppy” and you knowit, front your /ae/

Steve L. Johnson IIIMichigan State University

NWAV 35 - November 11, 2006

Outline

Gender in sociolinguistics

Gender in sociology

Pilot Study

Background

Gender-differentiated patterns oflanguage use “Gender Paradox” (Labov, 2001)

Wagner (2006), Eckert (1989)

Background, continued

Bem’s (1974) Sex Role Inventory

Bem’s (1981) Gender Schema Theory

McCrae and Costa (1997) Personality

Hypothesis

Individuals who score similarly on asurvey of gender traits will patternsimilarly in language use, regardless ofbiological sex

Northern Cities Shift

Northern Cities Shift

2

Participants

12 speakers (7 women and 5 men)

College students at MSU

Metro Detroit Area

Methodology

Self-rated survey of genderedpersonality traits

Reading Passage and Word List

Interview

F2 of /ae/ , 115 tokens

Self-Rating Sample

How well do the following terms describe youon a scale from 1 to 7. (1 meaning the termdoes not describe you at all and 7 meaningthat the term describes you very well)

e.g. affectionate: 1 = I am not at all affectionate ---------- 7 = I am very affectionate

Gendered TraitsWomen

AffectionateCheerful

CompassionateSoft spoken

ShySympathetic

GentleFeminine

UnderstandingWarm

Men

AnalyticalIndependentAmbitious

CompetitiveMasculineAssertiveAthletic

Self-reliantDominant

Aggressive

Results

Influence (r2 > 15%)

CheerfulWarmAffectionate-MasculineFeminineSympatheticCompassionateAmbitious

No Influence

GentleUnderstandingCompetitiveAthleticSelf-reliantAnalyticalAggressiveDominantShySoft spokenAssertiveIndependent

Influence of Cheerfulness

3

Masculinity vs. Femininity Indexes of Gender?

Add scores up for each gendered traitand group together to give a FemininityIndex and Masculinity Index.

Each index ranges from 7-70.

Applying the Indexes

203250John219750Gabby

204551Emma

F2 AveFemIndexName

Gabby vs John: p = .005

Gabby vs Emma: p=.025

Emma vs. John: p= .831

Summary /ae/-fronting is promoted among those who

have self-identified as cheerful, warm,affectionate, feminine, non-masculine,sympathetic, compassionate, and ambitious

All traits except for ambitious are traditionallyassociated with women

Gender Indexes do not seem to be sensitiveenough

Conclusion

Individual identity traits impact language use.

A more subtle examination of an individual’straits can be equally (or more) important thanthe use of traditional sociological variables.

Questions/Comments?

If you’re cheerful, affectionate, etc.,and you know it,

then your NCS will show it…

So if you’re “heppy” and you know it,front your /ae/!

4

ReferencesBem, Sandra. 1974. "The Measurement of Psychological Androgyny." Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology 42: 155-162.

Bem, Sandra. 1981. "Gender Schema Theory: A Cognitive Account of Sex Typing."Psychological Review 88 (4): 354-364.

Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). NEO PI-R. Professional manual. Odessa, FL:Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

Eckert, Penelope. (1989). Jocks and burnouts: Social categories and identity in thehigh school. New York: Teachers College.

Labov, William. (2001). Principles of Linguistic Change: Social Factors. Oxford:Blackwell.

Wagner, Suzanne Evans. (2006). "We act like girls and we don't act like men": The use ofthe male-associated variable (ay0) in South Philadelphia. Paper presented at PLC 30,University of Pennsylvania, February 25 2006.