Cover not available
Article published In:
Dementia-compromised language conflict and aggression
Edited by Boyd Davis
[Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 4:1] 2016
► pp. 8–34

Avoiding interactional conflict in dementia

The influence of gender styles in interactions

| Southeastern Louisiana University, USA
| Linköping University, Sweden

Sociolinguistic research in the general population has established the existence of gender differences in the social use of language. In particular, it has been noted that women use more markers of politeness, small talk and structural devices (e.g. minimal responses, tag questions) to help maintain their conversations. Analysis of interactions involving people with dementia (PWD) suggests that these gender based differences were still present in the face of dementia. Furthermore, the use of these forms of language helped the women with dementia to avoid conflict and extend the length of their interactions. This study investigated whether the use of such language helped or hindered women with dementia in maintaining conversational satisfaction.

Keywords: gender, interactional resources, dementia, politeness
Published online: 11 August 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.4.1.01gue
References
Alzheimer’s Organization
2015 [URL] downloaded 11/10/2015. [URL].
Angouri, Jo, and Miriam A. Locher
2012 “Theorising Disagreement.” Journal of Pragmatics 441: 1549–1553. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bax, Marcel, and Tineke Padmos
1983 “Two Types of Verbal Dueling in Old Icelandic: The Interactional Structure of the Senna and the Mannjafnadr in Harbardsljod.” Scandinavian Studies 551: 149–174.Google Scholar
Bayraktaroğlu, Arın, and Maria Sifianou
(eds) 2001 Linguistic Politeness across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benwell, Bethan, and Elizabeth Stokoe
2006 Discourse and Gender Studies. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre
1991 Language and Symbolic Power. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson
1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Deborah
1992 Feminism and Linguistic Theory. London: MacMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert, H
1996 Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coates, Jennifer
1983 Women, Men and Language. Longman: London.Google Scholar
1998 Women Talk. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2013 Women, Men and Everyday Talk. London: Palgrave MacMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 Women in their Speech Communities. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coates, Jennifer, and Pia Pichler
2011 Language and Gender: A Reader. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Coupland, Justine
2000 Small Talk. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas, Howard Giles, and John Wiemann
1991 Miscommunication and Problematic Talk. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Davis, Boyd
(ed.) 2008 Alzheimer Talk, Text and Context. London and New York: Palgrave McMillan.Google Scholar
Davis, Boyd, and Jackie Guendouzi
(eds.) 2013 Pragmatics in Dementia Discourse: Applications and Issues. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Dundes, Alan, Jerry W. Leach, and Bora Ozkok
1986 “The Strategy of Turkish Boys’ Verbal Dueling Rhymes.” In Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, edited by John J. Gumperz and Dell Hymes, 130–160. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope
1990 “Cooperative Competition in Adolescent ‘Girl Talk’.” Discourse Processes 131: 5–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope, and Sandra McConnell-Ginet
2013 Language and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Edelsky, Carol
1981 “Who’s Got the Floor?” Language in Society 101: 383–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eelen, Gino
2001 A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome’s Press.Google Scholar
Erol, Rosie, Dawn Brooker, and Elizabeth Peel
2015 Women and Dementia: A Global Research Review, [URL] (downloaded 11/11/2015)Google Scholar
Fischetti, Mark
2014 “The Networked Primate”. Scientific American, 311 (3): 83–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fishman, Pamela
1978 “Interaction: The Work Women Do”. Social Problems 241: 397 - 406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1959 The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
1967 Interactional Ritual, New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Gray, John
1991 Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Alan D
1992 Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guendouzi, Jackie
1996 “Gossip: Problematics for Definitions and Gendered Talk. Papers in Linguistics from the University of Manchester, Manchester: Department of Linguistics.11: 61–74.Google Scholar
1998 Negotiating Socialized Gender Identity in Women’s Time-out talk. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Cardiff: University of Wales.Google Scholar
2001 “You’ll Think we’re Always Bitching’: The Functions of Cooperativity and Competition in Women’s Gossip.” Discourse Studies 31: 55–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 “ ‘She’s very Slim’: Talking about Body-Size in all Female Interactions.” Journal of Pragmatics 361: 1635–1653. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 “ ‘I Feel quite Organized this Morning’: How Mothering is Achieved through Talk”. Sexualities, Evolution & Gender 71: 17–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 “The guilt thing”: Balancing Domestic and Professional Roles. Journal of Marriage and Family 681: 901–909. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 “’Who am I Talking to Anyway?’: Relevance Theory in the case of Dementia.” In Pragmatics in Dementia Discourse: Applications and Issues, edited by Boyd Davis, and Jackie Guendouzi, 29–54. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Guendouzi, Jackie, and Anna Pate
2013 “Interactional and Cognitive Resources in Dementia: A Perspective from Politeness Theory.” In Dialogue and Dementia: Cognitive and Communicative Resources for Engagement, edited by Robert Schrauf, and Nicole Müller, 121–146. Blackwell: London.Google Scholar
Guendouzi, Jackie, and Nicole Müller
2006 Approaches to Discourse in Dementia. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guendouzi, Jackie, Boyd Davis, and Margaret Maclagan
2015 “Expanding Expectations for Narrative Styles in the Context of Dementia.” Topics in Language Disorders 35 (3): 237–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael. A.K
1978 Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. Maryland: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Hamilton, Heidi E
2008a “Language and Dementia: Sociolinguistic Aspects.” In Language and the Brain, vol. 28 of the Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (ARAL), edited by Cornelius L.J. de Bot, 99–110. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2008b Narrative as Snapshot: Glimpses into the Past in Alzheimer’s Discourse. Narrative Inquiry 18 (1): 53–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, Mark, A
2012 “Verbal Aggression: Understanding the Psychological Antecedents and Social Consequences.” Language and Social Psychology 31 (1): 5–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hirst, William, and Gerald Echterhoff
2012 “Remembering in Conversations: The Social Sharing and Reshaping of Memories.” Annual Review of Psychology 631: 55–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Janet
1995 Women, Men and Politeness, Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail
1988 On the Sequential Organization of Troubles-Talk in Ordinary Conversation. Social Problems, 351: 418–441. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction”. In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, edited by Gene H. Lerner, 13–23. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Jens O
1922 Language: Its Nature, Development, and Origins. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Johnson, Sally, and Ulrike Meinhof
1997 Language and Masculinity. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin
1975 Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Malinowski, Bronislaw
1935 Coral Gardens and their Magic. 2 vols1. London: Allen Unwin.Google Scholar
Mills, Sara
2003 Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 “Gender and Impoliteness.” Journal of Politeness Research 1 (2): 263–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mulac, Antony, Kathryn Dindia, and Daniel J. Canary
2006 Sex Differences and Similarities in Communication (2nd ed.), 219–239. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
Potter, Jonathon, and Margaret Wetherell
1987 Discourse and Social Psychology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Ramanathan, Vai
1997 Alzheimer Discourse: Some Sociolinguistic Dimensions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sabat, Stephen
2001 The Experience of Alzheimer’s Disease: Life through a Tangled Veil. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sarangi, Srikant K., and Stefan Slembrouck
1992 “Non-Cooperation in Communication: A Reassessment of Gricean Pragmatics.” Journal of Pragmatics 171: 117–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schrauf, Robert, and Nicole Müller
2014 Dialogue and Dementia: Cognitive and Communicative Resources for Engagement. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Speer, Susan A., and Elizabeth Stokoe
2011 Conversation and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stein, Nancy L., Ronan S. Bernas, and David J. Calicchia
1997 “Conflict Talk: Understanding and Resolving Arguments.” In Conversation: Cognitive, Communicative and Social Perspectives, edited by Talmy Givón, 233–267. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stewart, Katherine, A., and Madeline M. Maxwell
2010 Storied Conflict Talk. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sunderland, Jane
2006 Language and Gender: A Resource. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sung, Chit, C.M
2012 “Exploring the Interplay of Gender, Discourse, and (Im)Politeness.” Journal of Gender Studies 21 (3): 285–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talbot, Mary
2010 Language and Gender. Cambridge, UK.: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah
1990 You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. London: Virago.Google Scholar
Thorne, Barrie, and Nancy Henley
1975 Language and Sex: Dominance and Difference. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Turkle, Sherry
2011 Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic BooksGoogle Scholar
Wray, Alison
2002 Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 Formulaic Language: Pushing the Boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Don H., and Candace West
1975 “Sex Roles, Interruptions and Silences in Conversation.” In Language and Sex: Dominance and Difference, edited by Barry Thorne, and Nancy Henley, 105–129. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

McPherson, Rachel, Elizabeth Galik, Ann L. Gruber-Baldini, Sarah Holmes, Nancy Kusmaul & Barbara Resnick
2023. Model Testing of the Factors that are Associated with Care Interactions among Nursing Home Residents with Dementia. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 24:9 ► pp. 1389 ff. DOI logo
McPherson, Rachel, Barbara Resnick, Elizabeth Galik, Ann Kolanowski, Marie Boltz & Kimberly Van Haitsma
2021. Differences in Staff–Resident Interactions Between Male and Female Residents in Nursing Homes. Journal of Gerontological Nursing 47:5 ► pp. 19 ff. DOI logo
Nicolini, Paola, Carlo Abbate, Silvia Inglese, Daniela Mari, Paolo D. Rossi & Matteo Cesari
2021. Socially desirable responding in geriatric outpatients with and without mild cognitive impairment and its association with the assessment of self-reported mental health. BMC Geriatrics 21:1 DOI logo
Webb, Joseph, Val Williams, Sandy Read, Harry Davis & Roy James
2022. A social practice theory approach to exploring the ubiquity of quizzes in dementia care settings. Ageing and Society ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.