Volume 8, Issue 36 (2020)
CFL 2020, 8(36): 129-157 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
shabani minnaabad M. The Relationship between Gender and the Usage of Different Kinds of Politeness and Verbal Violence in Proverbs of Taleshi Language (Minaabadi Dialect of Ardabil Province). CFL 2020; 8 (36) :129-157
URL: http://cfl.modares.ac.ir/article-11-45112-en.html
URL: http://cfl.modares.ac.ir/article-11-45112-en.html
payame noor , m.shabani.phd110@gmail.com
Abstract: (2058 Views)
Language usage is one of the most prominent social distinctions among men and women, which is often manifested in speech. In terms of “social norms”, linguistic politeness is regarded as a completely standard behavior in society. Each culture has its own behavioral norms, and the behavior that conforms to rules is politeness. Some of the social norms can be found in folklore and oral literature, including proverbs. Therefore, by choosing Taleshi language, spoken in Minaabad region of Ardabil city, the researcher tried to study the linguistic politeness and different types of face threatening acts to answer the following research question: is there any relationship between the gender of speakers and the usage of different kinds of politeness in the proverbs of Taleshi language. For this purpose, the researcher first interviewed the old and middle-aged men and women, and then collected 180 proverbs and examined them based on the existence of politeness and verbal violence. The data were analyzed by Log-linear analysis in SPSS software. The results of the statistical analysis indicated that there is a significant relationship in the usage of different kinds of politeness and verbal violence in the proverbs of different genders in Taleshi language, which, due to the community expectations, has also led to a difference in their social behavior.
Introduction
Research background
Locher and Bousfield (2008, p. 3) describe impoliteness as the “behavior that is face-aggravating in a particular context”. Women and men have different roles and functions in specific areas according to the social expectations. There have been many studies on the change of social behavior which, in turn, affects the linguistic behavior. Brown and Levinson (1987) conducted a study on the language of men and women in a Mayan community in Mexico to evaluate the hypothesis that women show more politeness than men. They believed that the level of politeness in a spoken interaction depends on the social relationship between the speaker and the listener, and that the signs of being polite showed social relationships. According to Leech (2014, p. 139), apart from being manifested in the content of conversation, politeness is also seen in the way the conversation as a whole is structured and managed by its participants. This means that the conversational behavior itself can be interpreted as being polite or impolite.
Fasold (1984) studied the gender differences in doing compliment. He called the phenomenon of compliments a bilingual phenomenon in which discourses 1 and 2 relate to social, communicative, and temporal situations.
In the field of combinatorics on words, many studies have focused on English. For example, Lakoof (1973) found that women use politer words, but most men do not use such words in their daily speech. She also believed that women use more adjectives with adorable, seductive, sweet, sacred, and beautiful meanings compared to men.
Goals, questions, and assumptions
Various researchers such as Goffman (1967), Brown and Levinson (1987), Bousfield (2007), Culpeper (1996), and Culpeper et al. (2003) have investigated the category of politeness and impoliteness in language studies. While the positive face represents the need to be connected, the negative face represents the need to be independent (Yule, 2010).
Although this theory has been the basis of much research in different parts of the world, it has not been explored widely in different dialects spoken in cities of Iran. So, the researcher, according to the Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory (1987), and Goffman’s face-threatening acts (1967) attempts to answer the question of whether there is a difference in the types of politeness and violence used in the language spoken by male and female Taleshi speakers. Other sub-questions to be addressed include:
1. Is there a meaningful relationship between the proverbs used by men and women in terms of the level of politeness and gender of the speakers?
2. Is there a significant relationship between the proverbs used by men and women in terms of level of violence and gender of the speakers?
3. What kind of politeness is most evident in the proverbs used by men and women?
4. What kind of violence is most evident in the proverbs used by men and women?
Discussion and conclusion
Based on the results of the data analysis, it can be concluded that there is a significant difference in terms of the proverbs used by men and women based on the variables of politeness and violence. In this study, which compared the content of the proverbs used by men and women to test the original hypothesis, it was significantly proven that there is a close relationship between gender and the usage of politeness and violence in the proverbs. These results are in line with those reported by Lakoof (1973) and Tannen (1990), but are inconsistent with the results of Spender (1980). Factors contributing to the development and continuation of these linguistic conditions include the violence resulting from the geopolitical situation of the region due to cultural and historical deprivations in the political and security terms that have influenced the manner of speaking and violent speech, since language is significantly a reflection of the culture and historical situation of the speakers.
Log-linear test was also used to test the secondary sub-hypotheses of the study. Confirming the first sub-hypothesis of the research using the Fi test, the findings showed that there was a significant relationship between the level of politeness and gender of the speaker, so the gender of the speaker influenced the politeness level of the proverbs used. The results of this study are in line with those of Brown and Levinson (1987). Among the factors that should be noted in relation to the emergence and continuation of this linguistic feature in this particular region and in this particular sub-dialect is the naturalization and acceptance of this linguistic status by the women of the community and the indirect efforts to promote and disseminate it. The influence of neighboring cultures and other ethnicities in Iran, where this situation is also widespread and prevalent, may be some of the other contributing factors.
By confirming the second sub-hypothesis of the study, it was found that the frequency of the types of violence used in men's proverbs varied. The results of this study are in line with those of Mohammadi (2016) and Mohammadkhani et al. (2006). Factors that indicate exclusively the emergence and in particular the persistence of this linguistic violence in this particular region can be traced to the long-standing traditional-patriarchal family system and its continuation up to the modern times.
By examining the third sub-hypothesis of the study, it was shown that in terms of proverbs used by men and women, the percentage of politeness used by women was higher than men. On the other hand, the informal politeness used by women was more than the other types of politeness. Also, the percentage of proverbs used by men was higher than that of the women, while the use of words by men was higher than women. The results of this study are in line with those of Jannejad (2001), and Hamidi and Ameri (2015). The reasons for the emergence and continuation of these conditions include the fact that from a socio-linguistic point of view, women of high social class refuse to use impolite terms and expressions because they are always concerned with preserving their prestige and social status in the community.
In general, it can be said that men and women have different roles and functions in specific areas depending on the social expectations. This not only does make a difference in their social behavior, but also affects their linguistic behavior. Men of all ages use more slang terms when talking to males and females. While women try to use interactive strategies in their daily interactions and conversations, they do not want to feel superior to one another. In their conversations, women try to minimize differences of opinion in order to reach an agreement, and this agreement improves and guarantees their relationship, even if they are not fully satisfied with the final decision. Thus, it can be concluded that gender is one of the components of individual and social identities, and therefore, the relation of language and gender is a subset of the relation of language and identity. As a result, in the studies of gender related linguistics, language and linguistic behavior are considered as the symbolic capital of the expression of sexual identities.
References
Bousfield, D. (2007). Impoliteness in interaction. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness, some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 349-67.
Culpeper, J., Derek, B., & Anne, W. (2003). Impoliteness revisited: with special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 545-79.
Fasold, R. (1984). The sociolinguistics of society. Basil Blackwell.
Goffman, E. (1967). Stigma notes on management of spoiled identity (translated into Farsi by Masood Kyanpour). Markaz Publication.
Hamidi, F., & Ameri, P. (2015). Creativity and modernism in the deconstruction of mystical and conversational languages. Women in Culture and Art, 7(3), 389-404.
Jannejad, M. (2001). Language and gender; social linguistic research in linguistic differences between Iranian male and female speakers in conversational interaction. PhD Thesis, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Lakoof, R. (1973). The logic of politeness; or minding your p's and q's. In papers from the ninth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago Linguistic society. 292-305.
Leech, G. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford University Press.
Locher, M. A., & Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in interaction. John Benjamins.
MohammadKhani, P., RezaeiDougah, A., Mohammadi, M., & AzadMehr, H. (2006). Prevalence of domestic violence patterns, its experiential commitment in men of weights. Social Welfare Quarterly, 21, 225-205.
Mohammadi, M. (2016). Violation of courtesy in Farsi-speaking social networks. Master's Degree in Public Linguistics, Hamedan: Bu Ali Sina University.The Power of Talks Who Gets Heard and Why, Harward Business Review, September.
Yule, G. (2010). The study of language (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Introduction
Research background
Locher and Bousfield (2008, p. 3) describe impoliteness as the “behavior that is face-aggravating in a particular context”. Women and men have different roles and functions in specific areas according to the social expectations. There have been many studies on the change of social behavior which, in turn, affects the linguistic behavior. Brown and Levinson (1987) conducted a study on the language of men and women in a Mayan community in Mexico to evaluate the hypothesis that women show more politeness than men. They believed that the level of politeness in a spoken interaction depends on the social relationship between the speaker and the listener, and that the signs of being polite showed social relationships. According to Leech (2014, p. 139), apart from being manifested in the content of conversation, politeness is also seen in the way the conversation as a whole is structured and managed by its participants. This means that the conversational behavior itself can be interpreted as being polite or impolite.
Fasold (1984) studied the gender differences in doing compliment. He called the phenomenon of compliments a bilingual phenomenon in which discourses 1 and 2 relate to social, communicative, and temporal situations.
In the field of combinatorics on words, many studies have focused on English. For example, Lakoof (1973) found that women use politer words, but most men do not use such words in their daily speech. She also believed that women use more adjectives with adorable, seductive, sweet, sacred, and beautiful meanings compared to men.
Goals, questions, and assumptions
Various researchers such as Goffman (1967), Brown and Levinson (1987), Bousfield (2007), Culpeper (1996), and Culpeper et al. (2003) have investigated the category of politeness and impoliteness in language studies. While the positive face represents the need to be connected, the negative face represents the need to be independent (Yule, 2010).
Although this theory has been the basis of much research in different parts of the world, it has not been explored widely in different dialects spoken in cities of Iran. So, the researcher, according to the Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory (1987), and Goffman’s face-threatening acts (1967) attempts to answer the question of whether there is a difference in the types of politeness and violence used in the language spoken by male and female Taleshi speakers. Other sub-questions to be addressed include:
1. Is there a meaningful relationship between the proverbs used by men and women in terms of the level of politeness and gender of the speakers?
2. Is there a significant relationship between the proverbs used by men and women in terms of level of violence and gender of the speakers?
3. What kind of politeness is most evident in the proverbs used by men and women?
4. What kind of violence is most evident in the proverbs used by men and women?
Discussion and conclusion
Based on the results of the data analysis, it can be concluded that there is a significant difference in terms of the proverbs used by men and women based on the variables of politeness and violence. In this study, which compared the content of the proverbs used by men and women to test the original hypothesis, it was significantly proven that there is a close relationship between gender and the usage of politeness and violence in the proverbs. These results are in line with those reported by Lakoof (1973) and Tannen (1990), but are inconsistent with the results of Spender (1980). Factors contributing to the development and continuation of these linguistic conditions include the violence resulting from the geopolitical situation of the region due to cultural and historical deprivations in the political and security terms that have influenced the manner of speaking and violent speech, since language is significantly a reflection of the culture and historical situation of the speakers.
Log-linear test was also used to test the secondary sub-hypotheses of the study. Confirming the first sub-hypothesis of the research using the Fi test, the findings showed that there was a significant relationship between the level of politeness and gender of the speaker, so the gender of the speaker influenced the politeness level of the proverbs used. The results of this study are in line with those of Brown and Levinson (1987). Among the factors that should be noted in relation to the emergence and continuation of this linguistic feature in this particular region and in this particular sub-dialect is the naturalization and acceptance of this linguistic status by the women of the community and the indirect efforts to promote and disseminate it. The influence of neighboring cultures and other ethnicities in Iran, where this situation is also widespread and prevalent, may be some of the other contributing factors.
By confirming the second sub-hypothesis of the study, it was found that the frequency of the types of violence used in men's proverbs varied. The results of this study are in line with those of Mohammadi (2016) and Mohammadkhani et al. (2006). Factors that indicate exclusively the emergence and in particular the persistence of this linguistic violence in this particular region can be traced to the long-standing traditional-patriarchal family system and its continuation up to the modern times.
By examining the third sub-hypothesis of the study, it was shown that in terms of proverbs used by men and women, the percentage of politeness used by women was higher than men. On the other hand, the informal politeness used by women was more than the other types of politeness. Also, the percentage of proverbs used by men was higher than that of the women, while the use of words by men was higher than women. The results of this study are in line with those of Jannejad (2001), and Hamidi and Ameri (2015). The reasons for the emergence and continuation of these conditions include the fact that from a socio-linguistic point of view, women of high social class refuse to use impolite terms and expressions because they are always concerned with preserving their prestige and social status in the community.
In general, it can be said that men and women have different roles and functions in specific areas depending on the social expectations. This not only does make a difference in their social behavior, but also affects their linguistic behavior. Men of all ages use more slang terms when talking to males and females. While women try to use interactive strategies in their daily interactions and conversations, they do not want to feel superior to one another. In their conversations, women try to minimize differences of opinion in order to reach an agreement, and this agreement improves and guarantees their relationship, even if they are not fully satisfied with the final decision. Thus, it can be concluded that gender is one of the components of individual and social identities, and therefore, the relation of language and gender is a subset of the relation of language and identity. As a result, in the studies of gender related linguistics, language and linguistic behavior are considered as the symbolic capital of the expression of sexual identities.
References
Bousfield, D. (2007). Impoliteness in interaction. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness, some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 349-67.
Culpeper, J., Derek, B., & Anne, W. (2003). Impoliteness revisited: with special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 545-79.
Fasold, R. (1984). The sociolinguistics of society. Basil Blackwell.
Goffman, E. (1967). Stigma notes on management of spoiled identity (translated into Farsi by Masood Kyanpour). Markaz Publication.
Hamidi, F., & Ameri, P. (2015). Creativity and modernism in the deconstruction of mystical and conversational languages. Women in Culture and Art, 7(3), 389-404.
Jannejad, M. (2001). Language and gender; social linguistic research in linguistic differences between Iranian male and female speakers in conversational interaction. PhD Thesis, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Lakoof, R. (1973). The logic of politeness; or minding your p's and q's. In papers from the ninth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago Linguistic society. 292-305.
Leech, G. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford University Press.
Locher, M. A., & Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in interaction. John Benjamins.
MohammadKhani, P., RezaeiDougah, A., Mohammadi, M., & AzadMehr, H. (2006). Prevalence of domestic violence patterns, its experiential commitment in men of weights. Social Welfare Quarterly, 21, 225-205.
Mohammadi, M. (2016). Violation of courtesy in Farsi-speaking social networks. Master's Degree in Public Linguistics, Hamedan: Bu Ali Sina University.The Power of Talks Who Gets Heard and Why, Harward Business Review, September.
Yule, G. (2010). The study of language (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Keywords: Sex, politeness, verbal violence, Taleshi language (Minaabadi dialect), proverb, face threatening.
Article Type: پژوهشی اصیل |
Subject:
Folklore
Received: 2020/08/11 | Accepted: 2020/11/18 | Published: 2021/01/29
Received: 2020/08/11 | Accepted: 2020/11/18 | Published: 2021/01/29
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |