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 (72)
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 (4)

Cited by four 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
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
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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.