Lakoff's uncertainty features:
- Hedging/hedges - shows uncertainty and lack of authority ''sort of''
- Super polite forms - ''if you dont mind please could you''
- Hyper correct grammar and pronunciation- women avoid using ''aint'' or double negatives
- Tag questions- ''im coming too, alright?'' Women seek approval
- Speaking in italics – women use exaggerated intonation or stress for emphasis, expresses uncertainty e.g. ‘I am very frustrated with you’
- Empty adjectives - Robin Lakoff claims that if a man uses these terms he appears more feminine as it damages his masculine prestige e.g. ‘divine, lovely, adorable, delightful and sweetie’
- Use of implication- Lakoff claimed women use this because they do not feel the authority to give orders e.g. ‘it’s cold in here, isn’t it’ instead of ‘shut the window’
- Special lexicon- Lakoff states that such words are trivial and evidence of the fact that women have been allowed control over unimportant things e.g. blue based purple women would say ‘lilac’ or ‘violet’
- Questions in declarative statements- women raise the pitch of their voice at the end of statements expressing uncertainty e.g. ‘Dinner’s in half an hour?’
Hypothesis:
Women will use more uncertainty features than men in a mixed gender conversation according to Robin Lakoffs ideas
Converstion used in analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsXNxEl7CN0
This conversation consists of one female and two male participants.
Girl: I don't think the dress code is wrong entirely the dress codes fine (.) i think its (.) just completely normal and sane to have a dress code because obviously its a public school and some people do decide to wear very tiny clothing and it just like it makes some people uncomfortable
/jump cut in video/
Girl: if its violating the dress code then everybody as a whole is just uncomfortable by that exposing that's fine its just part of the dress code (.) but the fact that the dress code makes it a sexual thing and it objectifies the girls in our school and i say girls (.) we are teenagers we are not (.) women who (.) you know (.) there's a very big difference between women being objectified and girls being objectified because girls here are as (stuttering) young as fourteen and they're being made in to sexual objects which i think is a very big problem(.) and so the dress code being a dress code is fine because it's party of society to have regulations (.) thats just what people do (unaudable) that's what they should be doing but its just the way they go about it and its kinda what it represents because when i think of the dress code i dont think of baggy pants or i can see your boxers go pull up your pants i think of girls getting dress coded for their midrift showing which i think is also a controversial issue because for me midrift is not a sexual thing at all its just your stomach and if its really hot (unaudable) and you know its style these days thats what they wear they wear high wasted with the (.) little shirts (.) and i dont think theres anything sexual about it (stuttering) if its like an extremely low cut top and youre wearing really really short shorts youre presenting yourself like that and its obvious i understand that the administration have to take it into account (.) but its just that the overall dress code represents the sexual objectification of girls
/jump cut in video/
Boy 1: Well because girls like tend to wear the well violate the rules more often/
Boy 2 : But you know like sagging like sagging like uhh (.) she said i mean like its (.) but its not showing skin thats the thing(2)
Girl: Its showing your under garments
Boy 2 : Yeah but um(.) a lot(.) a lot of the dress code for females especially is because theres (.) theres just to much skin exposure(.) and (1) i think thats the reason why guys dont get included in the school dress code (2) because yeah i mean(2) (stuttering) guys the max they can do is wear a tank top or wear like (.) one of those chubby shorts like (.) and thats it thats the thing
Boy1: [laughter]
From this text the hypothesis has been proven wrong, thus disproving Lakoffs uncertainty features according to the book 'Language And Womans Place'
During this video the female participant does not use hyper correct grammar through out as she uses slang such as ''kinda''. However she does speak using italics when she says ''really really short shorts'' with the exaggeration on the word really both times. Also going against the theory is the use of hedges by the male participants in the discussion, ''like'' was the most commonly used.
/jump cut in video/
Boy 1: Well because girls like tend to wear the well violate the rules more often/
Boy 2 : But you know like sagging like sagging like uhh (.) she said i mean like its (.) but its not showing skin thats the thing(2)
Girl: Its showing your under garments
Boy 2 : Yeah but um(.) a lot(.) a lot of the dress code for females especially is because theres (.) theres just to much skin exposure(.) and (1) i think thats the reason why guys dont get included in the school dress code (2) because yeah i mean(2) (stuttering) guys the max they can do is wear a tank top or wear like (.) one of those chubby shorts like (.) and thats it thats the thing
Boy1: [laughter]
From this text the hypothesis has been proven wrong, thus disproving Lakoffs uncertainty features according to the book 'Language And Womans Place'
During this video the female participant does not use hyper correct grammar through out as she uses slang such as ''kinda''. However she does speak using italics when she says ''really really short shorts'' with the exaggeration on the word really both times. Also going against the theory is the use of hedges by the male participants in the discussion, ''like'' was the most commonly used.
