Rezensionen 241 Pia Pichler and Eva Eppler (eds.), Gender & Spoken Interaction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. Pia Resnik Gender & Spoken Interaction was published on the occasion of Jennifer Coates’ 65 th birthday and is meant to honour her major contributions to this fast developing area of research. Throughout the book, the interplay of language and gender in spoken interaction, which requires linking the linguistic to the social, is analysed in a variety of ways, showing the wide range and high complexity of this interdisciplinary scientific field. Even though the foci of all ten contributions diverge tremendously with regard to the subjects, their backgrounds, relevant contexts and major topics of interest, the publishers still successfully manage to maintain some uniformity and logical order. The topics span various life stages and are arranged in a chronological order covering childhood, adolescence, adulthood and old age. Despite the fact that the studies show great variation, all contributors to this edition take a social-constructionist approach to language and gender issues (cf. Cameron: 4), which adds to the coherence of the individual chapters. This approach sees gender “as emerging in interaction, as being ‘done’ or ‘performed’ by speakers in specific contexts” (Pichler and Eppler: xi) rather than being seen as an ontological factor, essence or biological given. To put it in other words, “[c]ontemporary research sees gender, not as a prior category that affects how people speak, but as a highly contextualised process of identification” (Swann: 19). Thus, the interdependence and mutual influence of macro (societal) and micro (individual) levels are acknowledged, leading to gender being viewed as dynamic and definitely not static. Generally speaking, “[…] this volume reflects both continuity and change in researchers’ approaches to language and gender” (Cameron: 1). In the first chapter of the book, in contrast to the following contributions, the focus lies on theory rather than data analysis. Deborah Cameron presents major developments and changes in the field from the 1970s until today, which have led to its scientific recognition. She discusses how the focus has shifted from ‘women only’ to ‘men as well as women’ and the acceptance of the pluralising of femininities and masculinities, examining the intersection of gender with further categories, such as social class, ethnicity and age (cf. 2). Cameron provides the reader with a thorough understanding of the main developments, controversies and concerns in the research area and its influence on and implications for sociolinguistics by explaining milestones in language and gender research, such as the well-known ‘dominance approach’, which was put into question by the ‘difference approach’ in the 1980s (cf. 9), which was itself challenged in the 1990s by both the ‘postmodern turn’ and social constructionism (cf. 4-8). The explanations of the different theoretical stances prominent in the field clarify the shifts in focus and the study of comparably new issues, such as sexuality, identity and masculinities (cf. 10-13). Besides laying the groundwork for subsequent contributions, the overall aim of the chapter is to show that, “Change does not usually come out of nowhere” (3), but has been “foreshadowed in earlier work” (ibid.). Research questions that might seem outdated nowadays are likely to have enhanced progress and were not necessarily bad questions at the Rezensionen 242 time they were brought up; the circumstances (e.g. political and social context) might simply have changed (cf. 3). Cameron’s theoretical discussion is followed by contributions combine theory with data analysis. Chapters 2 and 3 concentrate on the school setting. In her article, Joan Swann shows the importance of investigating contexts in which gender does not figure prominently at first sight but becomes relevant when we pay attention to how it is being ‘done’ (cf. 18-19). She distinguishes two main analytical stances within research investigating the performative, way of (re-)producing gender in spoken interaction: Whereas some researchers are mainly interested in exploring the “indexicality of language” (20-22), i.e. relationship between speech styles and other social categories such as gender, others investigate the “textualised invocation of gender” (22-25), meaning the speakers’ representation of gender. In her analysis of extracts of spoken interaction of three 9-10 year-olds in a primary school in SE- England, Swann mainly focuses on the latter approach, as “[c]hildren themselves are clearly not ‘neutral’ beings and will bring to the classroom gendered practices, values and expectations” (27). Drawing on data from a project teaching pupils effective ways of exploring ideas (cf. 25) and analysing them using an interactional sociolinguistic approach (cf. 18), Swann reveals interesting ways in which gender “creeps into interactions [mainly] in relation to unofficial activities” (36) and that gender is directly or indirectly referred to in a context in which it is actually not salient: “[…] gender is always invocable, even where rarely invoked” (36). Investigating the same context, Janet Maybin combines ethnography with discourse analysis when examining two classes of 10-11 year-olds in Britain. Her account is special in the sense that she avoids approaching her subjects top-down, but tries to “enter into the children’s perspectives and understandings” (44). In contrast to Swann’s classroom examination, Maybin investigates children’s spoken interactions in informal situations (i.e. among themselves) and in semi-structured interviews together with peers (cf. 43-44). To be more precise, she looks at how sexuality and gender are represented in the children’s conversational narratives, as, according to her, “they play an active, inquiring role in their own socialisation” (42) in this respect. Despite wide variation in maturity in this age group, (hetero-) sexuality and associated topics like boyfriends, girlfriends, masculinity and kissing are very prominent in their talk and regarded as public affairs. The pupils’ construction of identity and knowledge is strongly informed by conversational practices which, in turn, are shaped by their social experience at this pre-adolescent stage. Discourse creates a space of experimentation for the children in the context of sexuality and practices. Variation in pitch, mimicking adult voices and using reported speech, for example, allow them to save face when necessary (cf. 58-60). In chapter 4, Anthea Irwin shifts the focus to a slightly older age-group when investigating two drama-groups of adolescents aged 13-16. Drawing on Foucault’s work on discourse (1980) and Goffman’s ideas on framing (1974) and footing (1981), Irwin adopts a qualitative discourse analytic approach. The subjects recorded themselves and this technique allows the researcher to analyse spontaneous talk during break times and before their classes (cf. 64). The two groups differ in social class and so do their ways of marking deviant positions in discourse - especially when speaking about sexuality and/ or gender. Whereas members of the group situated in a working class area in N-London are more likely to say something and then retract it Rezensionen 243 again (e.g. by making clear they were only joking; mostly used by girls) or shifting positions (mostly used by boys), members of the middle class group from SW- London generally tend to avoid fully committing to a deviant position (cf. 68-84). Irwin’s data again shows how the technique of altering their voice (e.g. volume and stress) helps adolescents to signal that they are solely speaking on a fantasy level and are in no way serious when talking about genderand/ or sexuality-related matters (cf. 83). Chapter 5 again deals with adolescence. Pia Pichler offers a discourse analysis of self-recorded spoken interaction of four private school girls in London. The focus of her analysis of discourses, practices and types of knowledge lies mainly on how the girls position themselves in their friendship groups. Not only does their privileged social status thus become obvious, but their notable efforts to distance and differentiate themselves from other members of their peer group who are less socially conscious. The attempt to accomplish “alternative private school femininities” (88) and, along with it, non-conformity regarding the social class they belong to shows an overt orientation towards class, which is rare in adolescent discourse (cf. 90-91). The girls are also unique in that they hardly ever broach the issue of gender and sexuality. Even though these topics play a marginal role in their conversation, the girls still emphasize their knowledge of the subject matter. Again, gender implicitly plays a role: while appreciating working-class masculinity when talking about topics such as music, drugs and sex, adopting ‘cool’, streetwise positions, the girls clearly reject working-class femininity, regarding it as embarrassing (cf. 108-110). The following contribution concentrates on the context of higher education. Siân Preece investigates three male Asian first-year undergraduate students from a working-class background who are taking part in an academic writing programme at a university in London. She examines how laddish masculinity is acted out by them. Although the interest in this age group has been increasing in the research of language and gender, so far most research in the context of higher education has been carried out in the United States (cf. 115) with young, elite (white) members of the middle-class at the centre of attention as they have been thought to represent the prototypical student. But university life nowadays is marked by social diversity, even more so at less prestigious institutions of higher education. According to Preece, exhibiting laddish masculinity particularly helps students who do not conform to the aforementioned middle-class, white student-stereotype to hide their vulnerability. She argues that “[w]ithin education contexts, laddishness appears closely interlinked with young men’s efforts to develop and maintain popularity with peers and resist institutional authority” (117; see also Wehelehan 2000). By examining male students from a non-traditional background and looking at how gender is represented when interacting with their colleagues, Preece is raising new questions and providing the reader with new, valuable insights into this research setting. Following well-known researchers in the areas of discourse (e.g. Fairclough 2003; Foucault 1974) and gender (e.g. Butler 1990; Cameron and Kulick 2003; Coates 2003) she is opting for a holistic approach taking paralinguistic and non-verbal data into consideration and paying attention to intersectionality (cf. 121). Hence, she clearly views gender “as a relational term” (ibid.). The analysis of the boys’ spoken interaction reveals that they are clearly distancing themselves from their peers (cf. 124). By exhibiting laddish masculinity, the boys try to appear rough, strong, self-confident and non-conformist: “[…] laddish Rezensionen 244 masculinity offered these young men powerful and seductive positions from which to speak to counter the relatively powerless institutional ‘non-traditional’ and ‘deficit’ positioning” (133). In chapter 7, Kira Hall tries to show that “‘maleness’ is as much gained as it is given, with speakers reproducing, and often exploiting, ideological links between form and meaning, in the production of a gendered subjectivity” (139). Additionally, she argues that class is not static and that the linguistic indices of both masculinity and class are to some extent flexible. She investigates “‘women who are attracted to women’”, who identify either as ‘lesbians’ or ‘boys’ (cf. 140) and draws on an immense body of data. Hall’s research is also exceptional in that it shows the importance of ethnographic methodology and demonstrates how cultural and societal values and ideologies (may) influence individuals’ ways of identification and language choice. While the ‘lesbians’ in her study orient to Western models of same-sex desire and clearly identify as female, the ‘boys’ identify with rural Indian models and maleness, eventually aiming at sexual reassignment surgery. In the socio-cultural context of interest to Hall, language practices are strictly bound to gender as well: while Hindi is used to mark masculinity and is, hence, used by the ‘boys’, English is regarded as typical of the upper class and associated with progressiveness. English is therefore spoken by the ‘lesbians’ to distance themselves from male-identified, ‘vulgar’ language and consequently to mark their female identities. This study is special in representing an extreme case of language choice depending on how one identifies and Hall “argues for a deeper consideration of the discursive alliance between language, masculinity, and social class” (141; see also Livia 2004). The two following contributions shift the focus to the relevance of gender in spoken interaction in the business setting. Susan McRae in her article explores the role of “gender, occupational roles and relative status in spoken interaction in the workplace” (163), specifically in disagreement situations during meetings. Methodology-wise, two approaches are applied: a Conversational Analytical approach, in which solely the transcripts are of relevance, and a more comprehensive analysis including other factors, such as information about the participants and companies, statistics and feedback (cf. 163). Disagreement situations are particularly interesting with regard to gender as “power differentials can be polarised, with those in superior positions being more likely to have their views or proposals accepted” (166). A first analysis did not reveal any particular gender-specific differences, such as women being more collaborative and men more competitive in their talk. Disagreements were in general expressed in an indirect way, using tag questions, epistemic modal verbs, hesitations, hedges and the like (cf. 167). Hence, the speaking style of both women and men could be described as collaborative in disagreement situations. But on closer inspection (cf. 168), it becomes clear that those with higher occupational status most often ‘won’ an argument and got their say, and these were almost exclusively men. Whenever gender is referred to, it is clearly correlates with differences in role or status. Hence, McRae very well shows that ‘text-only’ analysis is often insufficient as, for example, employment patterns and concomitant distributions of power are of relevance, too. She demonstrates that the gender-language-interface both perpetuates and reflects inequality among women and men at work. Obviously, gender is relevant to workplace communication and clearly has an effect on spoken interaction as women are likely to be given less power in disagreement situations (cf. 182-183). Rezensionen 245 Chapter 9, too, looks at a professional setting, yet approaching it with different research questions. Janet Holmes explores the types of masculinities brought into the workplace and how these are exhibited in interaction between colleagues. Analysing data from the Wellington Language in the Workplace Project (188), in which a range of workplaces in New Zealand were examined, she adopts a social constructionist approach using discourse analysis with an interactional sociolinguistic perspective (Gumperz 1996). Holmes identifies three frequently occurring discourse styles used by male leaders in the workplace: the authoritative style, the paternalistic style and the egalitarian style (189). The authoritative style (cf. 189-193) is used to show decisiveness, the ability to control and includes direct criticism of others as well as confrontational and challenging behaviour. It is mainly used by male leaders. The second style covers mentoring and a paternalistic attitude towards employees including supportive and protective behavior. A male leader is most likely to use this kind of speech style to address female employees (cf. 193-200). The third style is mainly used among male-only groups and is associated with a superior who is friendly and plays down differences in status, showing solidarity and collegiality by using rather informal and casual language (cf. 200-204). Needless to say, the aforementioned discourse styles are variable and context-dependent. One leader may even apply all of them depending on who is talking to whom about what, where and when. All in all, Holmes shows that masculinity is not stable but dynamic and constantly needs to be managed (cf. 204; see also Coates: 2003: 79, 81). In the final contribution, Eva Eppler shifts the focus towards the older generation of Jewish Austrian, female refugees living in London. Second, she extends her analysis to the context of bilingual speech. Eppler describes the aim of her chapter as follows: “[…] to establish whether the features of spontaneous interaction that have been identified as characteristics of women’s friendship talk by Coates (1996), among others, are also employed by women from a different and so far unexplored cultural, linguistic, ethnic background” (211) when a collaborative floor is jointly constructed. Methodologically speaking, she moves one step before the so-called postmodern turn (cf. Cameron 2005) empirically examining whether certain speech styles typical of a particular gender in a certain context can indeed be observed. The data she analyses cover informal conversations between four female Austrian Holocaust refugees in their late sixties/ early seventies living in NW-London at the time of investigation. Using a Conversation Analytical approach to code-switching (cf. Auer 1984, 1998), Eppler shows that the participants use their L1 (German) to mention aspects digressing from the main storyline, which is pursued in their L2 (English). English is thus used to mark “generally known fact[s]” (Gumperz 1982: 80) and German is spoken whenever the examinees express their “personal opinion/ knowledge” (Gumperz 1982: 80). All in all, Eppler draws the conclusion that “female participants code-switch to establish an egalitarian bilingual collaborative floor” (222) and need to pay even closer attention than monolinguals to the various linguistic levels involved in order to achieve it (cf. ibid.). By distancing herself from a social constructionist approach, she is trying to advocate being “careful not to overstate the extent of the shifts that have taken place”, as Cameron (4) had suggested in the introductory chapter of this book. To conclude, apart from its first chapter, Gender & Spoken Interaction has a strong empirical focus and shows that analyses of the microlevels of interaction can Rezensionen 246 reveal a lot how gender is expressed in spoken interaction. Beyond offering rich insights into the topic itself, the authors exhibit a wide methodological range of mainly qualitative sociolinguistic research. The majority of the contributions also highlights the importance of taking an interdisciplinary approach and a triangulation of research methods to get a better understanding of the vast and complex research area. To someone interested in the areas of applied linguistics (discourse analysis, especially) and/ or gender - advanced students and teachers alike - the book will definitely prove enriching. It offers many answers, but also raises further questions and offers ideas for future study designs. Personally speaking, I agree with Cameron (cf. 4) and Eppler (cf. 232) when they state that the shifts that have taken place in the study of language and gender should not be overrated. Yet I am still convinced that the view of gender being dynamic and relational is more applicable to grasping the intricacies of social realities, rather than viewing it as static or given. From my point of view, the latter clearly holds the danger of perpetuating stereotypes. In general, the authors of the articles in the volume have put a lot of effort into undermining the continuation or reproduction of stereotypes. Focusing on rather uncommon settings (e.g. Preece: 115-138), for example, is certainly a good way to do so. All in all, Gender & Spoken Interaction offers rich insights into the expanding linguistic subfield of gender and spoken interaction. By including a variety of research settings and subjects of various age-groups, ethnic and socio-cultural backgrounds, it is a great contribution that provides the reader with a better understanding of and deep insights into how gender is (re-)produced in spoken interaction across the lifespan. References Auer, P. (1984). Bilingual Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Auer, P. (ed.) (1998). Code-Switching in Conversation. Language, Interaction and Identity. London: Routledge. Buchholtz, M. (ed.) (2004). Language and Woman’s Place: Text and Commentaries. New York: OUP. Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London: Routledge. Cameron, D. (2005). “Language, gender and sexuality: current issues and new directions.” Applied Linguistics 26/ 4. 482-502. Cameron, D. / D. Kulick (2003). Language and Sexuality. Cambridge: CUP. Coates, J. (1996). Women Talk: Converstion between Women Friends. Oxford: Blackwell. Coates, J. (2003). Men Talk: Stories in the Making of Masculinities. Oxford: Blackwell. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge. Foucault, M. (1974). The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Tavistock. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/ Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977. London: Harvester Press. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis. New York: Harper and Row. Goffman, E. (1981). “Footing.” In: Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 124-59. Rezensionen 247 Gumperz, J.J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: CUP. Gumperz, J.J. (1996). “The linguistic and conversational relativity of conversational inference.” In: Gumperz/ Levinson (1996). 374-406. Gumperz, J.J. / S.C. Levinson (eds.) (1996). Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: CUP. Livia, A. (2004). “Language and Woman’s Place: picking up the gauntlet.” In: M. Buchholtz (ed.) Language and Woman’s Place: Text and Commentaries. New York: OUP. 143-150. Wehelehan, I. (2000). Overloaded: Popular Culture and the Future of Feminism. London: Women’s Press. Pia Resnik English Department University of Graz